Rajasthan Court November 2006 Judgments
Anita JaIn (Smt.) Vs. Rajendra Kumar JaIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2717
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife Smt. Anita Jain challenging the order of the Family Court by which the application filed by the respondent- husband Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain for stopping the payment of maintenance to the appellant-wife has been allowed. This application had been filed as liberty had been left to the respondent-husband vide order dated 12.1.2001 to move the Family Court under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act or any other enabling provisions to scale down or stop the payment of maintenance, if the respondent-husband could prove change in the circumstances.2. To clarify the aforesaid position, it may be stated that the respondent husband had initially filed an application before the Family Court for grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and the Family Court, after contest, passed a decree in favour of the respondent-husband annulling the marriage after recording a finding that the appellant-wife Smt. Anita...
Tag this Judgment!Nanu Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3290
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated July 24, 2000 of the learned Sessions Sawai Madhopur whereby Nanu Khan and Jagdish, the appellants herein, have been convicted and sentenced as under:Nanu Khan:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 394 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Jagdish:Under Section 302/34 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 394 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. At the time of hearing of appeal (No. 504 2004) we notice that only appellant Nanu Khan preferred...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Steel and Industries Ltd. Vs. Judge, Labour Court No. 2 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1115
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The matter comes up on the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Both the parties are agreed that the writ petition may be finally heard.2. This writ petition is directed against the impugned Award dated 24.8.2001 passed by the Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur. The main challenge to the impugned Award is on the ground that the learned Labour judge has not considered the aspect regarding punishment and the burden of proof or grounds for considering the misconduct and as to how the evidence is to be appreciated when the termination of service is after a duly conducted domestic enquiry and also seriously erred in not giving any findings as to whether the misconduct of insubordinate, indiscipline, instigating Go Slow and Strike, intimidating the workers which resulted in Go Slow and strike and subsequent lockout is established or not during the enquiry conducted by the employer. Unless the finding of misconduct is arrived at the gravity of...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Handloom Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: I(2008)BC602
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under:(a) declare the debt due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short '1993 Act') as ultra vires, invalid and void;(b) declare that the constitution of the Tribunal under Article 323B is unconstitutional and bad in law;(c) declare that the order dated February 3,1997 passed by the Tribunal and order dated December 17, 1997 passed by the Appellate Tribunal are without jurisdiction, illegal and void;(d) declare that the suit/application filed by the Bank for seeking decree for recovery against the petitioner is not maintainable;(e) declare that the respondent Bank is not entitled to recover any amount pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated February 23, 1998 in application No. 90/94 and the execution proceedings if initiated be quashed;(f) to restrain the bank from recovering any amount pursuant to the order dated February 3,1997 of the Tribunal or order dated December 17,199...
Tag this Judgment!inder Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj737
Govind Mathur, J.1. These two petitions for writ involve common questions of facts and law, therefore, are decided and governed by this common judgment.2. The petitioners by an order dated 11.10.2006 issued by the Collector, Jodhpur are subjected to transfer as Patwari from one patwar circle to another with different Tehsil in District Jodhpur. The challenge is given to the order aforesaid being in violation of Rule 9 read with Rule 412 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1957'). The Rules aforesaid read as follows:9. Transfers. - (1) The Collector may transfer a Patwari from one circle or tehsil to another in his own district; but no transfer of a Patwari from one district to another shall be made without the sanction of the Member, Land Records, Board of Revenue. Transfers from one division to another will be sanctioned by the Board of Revenue. The Sub-divisional Officers are also empowered to transfer a Patwari from one ...
Tag this Judgment!Yashwant Kumar Vs. Smt. Kunta Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj67; RLW2007(1)Raj656
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The marriage of the appellant and respondent took place in the year 1979. They lived together upto 21.2.1988. According to the appellant, since the behaviour of the respondent with appellant was not good since time of marriage, there were usual quarrels between the appellant and the respondent. According to the appellant the respondent used to go to her parents house at Mandsore without taking permission of the applicant and normally in absence of the appellant. Because of this, there was mental tension for appellant. He tried to resolve the dispute raised by the respondent but on 21.2.1988, when appellant was on duly, the respondent left the house of the appellant with her three children and went to Mandsore. Since then the respondent is living at Mandsore, The appellant tried his best to bring back the respondent but he failed in his efforts. According to the appellant, the respondent's mother and father are also not intere...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanu Kumari (Smt.) Vs. Jitendra Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1077
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking transfer of the civil suit No. 41/2002/05 (Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Kumari and Ors.) pending before District Judge, Alwar.2. As per the facts pleaded in the petition the petitioner and her father Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh, former Ruler of erstwhile State of Alwar aged 95 years, are presently residing in New Delhi. In accordance with Article XI of the Covenant for the formation of the United State of Matsya in the year 1949 an inventory of Maharaja's private properties was drawn with the approval of Government of India. In terms of the said covenant the properties owned by Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh are being continued to be held by him. On July 29, 19.70 a notice was issued by State Government to Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 seeking to acquire the land in excess of the ceiling limits. Objections we...
Tag this Judgment!Shamsundar Agrawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ749
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In the instant petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 15-10-2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand (for short, 'trial Court' hereinafter) taking cognizance of offences under Section 7(b). The Seeds Act, 1966. read with Sections 3/7, Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner as well as order dated 18-11-2004 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dismissing the revision-petition filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner is claiming relief on the ground that he is working as Deputy Managing Director of Mahyco Seeds Ltd., having its registered office in Mumbai. The company in which the petitioner is Deputy Managing Director is engaged in the business of production, processing and marketing of high quality seeds for the farming community of India since 1964. The relevant facts of the case are that on 12-6-2003, complainant non-petitioner No. 2-Bhupendra Singh Rathore, Seeds Inspec...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh through' his LRs. Vs. Laxman and Ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1109
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. The leading facts of this second appeal may be stated below:2. The defendant respondent No. 4 Nemi Chand (since deceased, now represented by legal representatives, obtained loan from State Bank of Jhalawar after mortgaging the suit shop. Since the loan amount remained unpaid, therefore, proceedings for effecting recovery came to the initiated under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 (for short, PDR Act. On receipt of request from the Recovery Officer (defendant No. 3), the Collector, Jhalawar issued a notice under Section 4 of the PDR Act, which was stated to be served on defendant Nemi Chand on or about 24.8.1954. Thereafter, Nemichand filed a petition (Ex.A/5) on 20.9.1954 and denied his liabilities under Section 8 of the PDR Act. However, the Collector made the certificate absolute on 19.1.1956. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated 19.1.1956, defendant Nemichand resorted to the provisions of Section 23-A of the PDR Act by filing ...
Tag this Judgment!Management Committee Tagore Vidya Bhawan Vs. State of Rajasthan and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1060
Sharma, J.1. By this review petition the petitioner seeks to recall the order dated July 18, 2002. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, (a) suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order, and (b) permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. Bearing these guidelines in mind we proceed to decide the instant petition.2. The appeal filed by respondent employee (for-short 'employee') seeking selection scale at par with the Government employees was allowed by the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal vide order dated April 25,2001. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition No. 2575/2001. The writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated April 15, 2002 with the following observations:Lastly it is argued that the Tribunal has committed an error in granting relief to some of the teachers of educational institutions though have approac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »