Rajasthan Court May 2006 Judgments
Kamlesh Purohit (Dr.) Vs. the Jai Narayan Vyas University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2389
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. By this petition the petitioner, Dr. Kamlesh Purohit seeks review of the order dated 27.4.2006 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1 18 of 2006. Three appeals were disposed of by the said order, the appeals had arisen from identical orders of the learned Single Judge confirming an interim order staying the appointment of Heads of Department (HOD) in different subjects/faculties in Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (in short, 'the University') Case of the appellants including the University inter alia was that as a result of stay, the concerned departments had become 'headless' as the order of stay by itself could not result in revival of appointment of the previous incumbents on the post. Having regard to the urgency involved, counsel for the parties agreed that the appeals may finally be disposed of at the admission stage and accordingly the appeals were heard on 26.4.2006 and 27.4.2006, and finally disposed of.2. As indicated above, the dispute related to the appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Ram Vs. Radhaballabh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2334; 2006(4)WLC30
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This second appeal of tenant Shree Ram son of Bodhan is directed against the concurrent findings and judgments of two courts below decreeing the suit on the grounds of personal bona fide necessity of the plaintiff-landlord Radhaballabh son of Hiralal. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 11.12.2002 with the followings substantial questions of law framed by the Court:-(1) Whether the need of a brother who is not dependent on the plaintiff and is living separately is a member of the plaintiff's family and the ground Under Section 13(1)(h)(i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act is available to him for eviction?(2) Whether the decree of eviction is bad in law for non- determination of question of partial eviction?(3) Whether the impugned judgment has been passed in violation of mandatory provision of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and is liable to be set aside on this ground as well?2. The facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that a sh...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saddiq Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC255; 2008ACJ14
ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. Since these two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 16.8.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The Tribunal while deciding claim case No. 819/1991 vide its award dated 16.8.1993 awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,90,000 along with interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the claimant on account of death of his elephant named Babli, who died upon being hit by offending jeep bearing registration No. RNX-9550, which was driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1, Saddiq Khan, on 12.10.1988. The said jeep while coming from the opposite side on Amer Fort Road, Jaipur hit the said elephant, which was carrying the tourists over it and as a result of the said hitting, the said elephant suffered injuries and died after three days.3. The Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant and held th...
Tag this Judgment!Shakti Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3017; RLW2006(4)Raj2664; 2006(4)WLC1
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant case unfolds a pathetic, chilling and sinister phenomenon whereby the life of an innocent husband has been eliminated from worldly scene by an unfaithful wife and her paramour. Second appellant-Smt. Vandana, the wife and her alleged paramour first appellant-Shakti Singh, was put to trial on the charge of murder of Piyush, the unfortunate innocent husband. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 21-1-2003, having found the prosecution case proved, convicted both the appellants of offence under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. Both of them have also been convicted of offence Under Section 365, IPC and sentenced each of them to five years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo 15 days' S.I. They have further been convicted of offence Under Section 201, IP...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Singh Alias Darshan Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3008; RLW2006(4)Raj2749; 2006(4)WLC82
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-1-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.2. The factual scenario as emerged during the investigation is that the appellant Darshan Singh is the brother of D. W. 3 Chhindri Bhatni with whom the deceased Kaku Singh was having illicit relations. It is alleged that in the intervening night of 3rd & 4th May, 2001 at about 12:15, P.W. 1 Jaswant Singh received a telephonic call from P.W. 4. Dr. Amarjeet Ghawla to the effect that his daughter was perturbed and as such he should immediately reach to the house of his son-in-law deceased Kaku Singh. He gave this information to brother of the deceased P.W. 15 Buta Singh. On reaching to the spot, he found the gate of the house closed but the windo...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Singh Vs. Chandra Shekhar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2500
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. This first appeal under Section 96, CPC challenges the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 475, of 2004 (Chandra Sekhar Bobra v. Hari Singh, whereby the suit filed by plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 has been decreed against defendant-appellant and the trial Court has passed the decree of eviction against the defendant directing him to vacate and handover the disputed premises to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The learned Court has also directed the defendant to, pay due rent Rs. 2,700/- to the plaintiff and has fixed the standard rent @ Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit and also held the plaintiff entitled to receive damages for use and occupation from defendant @ Rs. 1,000/- from September 2002 till handing over of vacant possession.2. It is worth stating here that the appellant-defendant, who has filed the present appeal, before filing of ...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Gases Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC357; RLW2007(1)Raj692; 2006WLC(Raj)UC612
Harbans Lal, J.1. This instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has challenged the order dated 8.12.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 59/05 whereby he has confirmed the order dated 22.7.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 201/2005 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that the relation-ship between accused petitioner, the son and complainant non-petitioner, the father, is said to be strained and not cordial. Petitioner Praveen Bhardwaj is running a gas agency by the name of M/s. Prasanna Gases infront of N.E.B. Shopping Centre, Near Khandelwal School, Manna Ka Road, Alwar since 16.4.2001. The said gas agency is in the name of the petitioner who is the sole proprietor. Non-petitioner No. 2 is a retired person. In the month of Jan...
Tag this Judgment!Maina Devi Kabra Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj670
Dalip Singh, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure 18 passed by the respondent Corporation dated 13.10.2005 by which the candidates of the petitioner was rejected by the Screening Committee as in the opinion of the Corporation and the Screening Committee, no educational qualification certificate had been submitted.2. The contention of the respondent-Corporation is that the petitioner has alleged that he has passed the secondary examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan but no certificate or the marksheet to this effect of the Board was submitted by the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had submitted the documents Annexure 4 and 5 along with the form. A perusal of the same, however, shows that same are a transfer certificate issued by the Principal and a certificate issued by the District Education Officer. Suffice it to say that the same cannot be equated with the requirement of the certifica...
Tag this Judgment!Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. Jaipur Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. (In Liquidat ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: [2007]76SCL525(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicant Podar Mills Limited moved this application along with Judge's summons for seeking the orders of this Court inter alia to the effect that the capitalised value of the land described in Annexure 1 appended to the application be fixed and the Official Liquidator be directed to disclaim the said land under Section 535 of the Companies Act and the amount so fixed by this Court may be directed to be deposited by the applicant and further that the Official Liquidator be directed to transfer/ assign the reversionary rights and other interests in the said land in favour of the applicant on the capitalised value so fixed by this Court. The piece of land which is in possession of the applicant Podar Mills Ltd. belongs to the Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (the company in liquidation) which was ordered to be wound up by this Court vide order dated December 2, 1983. After the winding up order all the properties of the company in liquidation shall b...
Tag this Judgment!Podar Mills Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: [2007]137CompCas271(Raj); [2007]77SCL194(Raj)
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicant Podar Mills Ltd., moved this application along with judge's summons for seeking the orders of this court, inter alia, to the effect that the capitalised value of the land described in annexure 1 appended to the application be fixed and the official liquidator be directed to disclaim the said land under Section 535 of the Companies Act and the amount so fixed by this Court may be directed to be deposited by the applicant and further that the official liquidator be directed to transfer/assign the revisionary rights and other interests in the said land in favour of the applicant on the capitalised value so fixed by this court. The piece of land which is in possession of the applicant Podar Mills Ltd., belongs to the Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (the company in liquidation) which was ordered to be wound up by this Court vide order dated December 2, 1983. After the winding up order all the properties of the company in liquidation shall be dee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »