Rajasthan Court December 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Hemlata Vs. Praveen Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj78
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The marriage between appellant Hemlata alias Ritu and respondent Praveen Kumar Khandelwal, who are present in person took place on July 3, 2005 at Jaipur in accordance with Hindu Rites. Out of said wedlock a female child was born on April 26, 2006 but because of strained relations appellant came from Agra (in-laws house) to Jaipur on April 30, 2006 and started residing with her parents. Despite several efforts for reconciliation by the friends, relatives and well wishers, there was no improvement in the broken relationship and the spouses mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. A joint petition therefore under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act' was filed in Family Court No. 1 Jaipur. Learned Family Court dismissed the petition on October 27, 2006. Hence this appeal.2. Having closely scanned the material on record we notice that marriage has not been consummated for more than one year. Finding the appellant pregnant i...
Hanuman Meena Vs. Chandra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj76
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 11-7-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 28-4-2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur (East) and has remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a civil suit wherein he had claimed that he had purchased a plot, Plot No. 23 situated in Vijay Nagar Scheme, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur from Shri Laxmi Narayanpuri Bhawan Nirmal Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur (henceforth to be referred to as 'the society', for short). Since 1981 he is in possession of the said plot. However, after handing over the possession to him, the society tried to reduce the size of his plot and tried to issue an amended allotment letter. The plaintiff cautioned the society against it. It was further claimed that plot Nos. 25 and 26 were bought by the pro...
45 B.R.T.F. and anr. Vs. Padmawati Arts Creation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN31
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit foreviction against petitioners under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent ControlAct, 2001. The defendant petitioner submitted an application under Order 7Rule 11 C.P.C. and prayed that since no notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has beenserved by the plaintiff upon the Union of India, as required by the mandatoryprovisions of law, therefore, petition filed by the non-petitioner for evictionof the petitioners non-applicants before the Tribunal deserves to be rejected. The Tribunal vide order dt. 18.09.2006 after relying upon judgment of theBombay High Court 2006 AIH 2024 Food Corporation of India v. Union of India and Anr. held that petition filed under Rent Control Act is not governedby the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and it is not mandatory tofollow the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore,the petition filed by the non-petition...
Ulfat Rai Arya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1846
Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 24-6-1993 passed by Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 161. IPC :- Six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 :- One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraph Department, Sikar and was conducting an enquiry against Sh. Tara Chand Deothia, Office Assistant, Telegraphs of DET, Sikar who was facing a departmental enquiry under Section 16 of CCS (Conduct) Rules for flouting the orders of his superiors. It is alleged that the appellant on 14/15-2-1985 demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/ - ...
Madan Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN344
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed before us, we dot not find any reason to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter of another writ petition earlier filed in relation to certain relief claimed to be in public interest, being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5008/2005. The Court, in that writ petition, noticed that as per the internal audit of Public Health Engineering Department misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 65,80,000/- for the period October, 2001 to September 2003 was pointed out but nothing has been done in the matter. The Court opined that in such matters instead of going on making inquiry to identify the culprits for indefinite period of time regular criminal cases should have been instituted after the facts of misappropriation came to light so that whosoever is found to be guilty and responsible for such misappropriation may be brought to book. Consequently, the Court directed that:We ar...
Krishnalal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN326
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The land in question which is situated in village chak 13 MD, Murabba 82/33 was allotted to the petitioner-appellant Lekh Ram who was resident of village Chak 13 MD in Tehsil Anupgarh vide allotment letter dt. 20.09.74 in response to his application. The allotment was made of 20 bigha of land (light loom) in Murabba 82/33 which was in command area.3. A notice was issued to the petitioner appellant under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonistion Act calling upon him to show cause as to why the allotment made in his favour be not cancelled. The said notice was issued on 02.04.1979. By order dt. 25.09.1979 the allotment was cancelled on the ground that since the allotment the petitioner himself is not cultivating the land and has let is out to Sahiram on the basis of sharing the crop 50-50. The appellant petitioner denied the allegation of transferring the possession of the land in question for securing its cultivation on share bas...
Ghanshyam Singh Bhadoria Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN464
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. The present writ petition is filed against the act of the Bank whereby the Bank has resorted to recovery of the secured interest against a person who says that he is the guarantor of the principal borrower.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being a guarantor, it is not available for the Bank to proceed against the assets of the guarantor without exhausting its right, liability and claim against the principal borrower.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent per contra submits that in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002'), the definition of 'borrower' is provided in Section 2(f) of the Act of 2002 which is quoted herein below:'borrower' means any person who has been granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assis...
Municipal Board Vs. Rajasthan Targur and Nira Udhyog and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN322
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 26th October 2005 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 7/05 on 26th October 2005 the Executing Court allowed the decree-holder's application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and directed the petitioner to reinstall the booth at the place for which the respondent decree-holder obtained the decree in Civil Original Suit No. 91/97 on 25th October 1999.3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff non- petitioner filed suit for injunction and sought relief against non-petitioner defendant that the nonpetitioner defendant should not remove the plaintiff's booth situated on particular location given in the plaint having measurement of 8'x6'. The suit was decreed and petitioner was restrained from removing booth without following due process of law. The non-petitioner submitted in the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC that despite injunction decree, the petitioner has removed...
Hindustan Lever Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN336
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition is directed against the notification dt. 24th March, 2005 by prescribing the rate of sales tax to be levelled on maximum retail price printed on the package notwithstanding that the subject matter of levy was not the last point sale but was the first point sale to which MRP is not related. The validity of Section 4(A) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act had also been challenged.3. The issues raised in this petition were similar to one raised in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3407/2004- Rajasthan Chemists Association v. State of Rajasthan and others which was decided on 29th March, 2005. The Division Bench has opined that levy of tax on sale of goods is on the event of sale and one taxing event cannot be subjected to tax by providing measure of tax with reference to another taxing event, which has not even taken place.4. It was further held that every transaction of sale is independent and can be subjected to levy of tax and...
Abhay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN283
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order.2. The contention of learned Counsel is that complainant and petitioner are cousin brother and land in dispute was in joint tenancy. It is also submitted that land acquisition proceedings in relation to the disputed land took place, and therefore, after following due procedure, the compensation awarded in relation to the land in the name of petitioner was obtained by him. It is also stated that those proceedings were quasi judicial in nature and after notification, the proceedings were taken, therefore, simply on the basis of allegation that in the year 1956, the division took place of the land in the absence of cogent evidence and in the absence of Revenue record, cannot be said that petitioner has cheated in any manner. It is also submitted that prima facie, case for granting bail has been made out in favour of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »