Rajasthan Court July 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.
Abbu Bakar and anr. Vs. Deen Dayal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2913; 2006(4)WLC494
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. has been Tiled by the applicant Abbu Bakar and Abdul Kayum for setting aside of the judgment and decree passed in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 59/1998, by which the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent Deen Dayal was allowed and this Court decreed the suit for specific performance of the contract in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for specific performance of the contract dated 23.11.1993 by which, according to the plaintiff-de-fendant No. 1 Harjot Kanwar agreed to sell a plot No. 102 situated at village Suthla, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, in Hinglaj Nagar for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/- and the plaintiff paid Rs. 5100/- to defendant Harjot Kanwar and an agreement was executed between the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract against defendant No. 1 alone. From the written statement filed by ...
Nathu Lal Vs. Dargah Committee
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2928; 2006(4)WLC555
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The substantial question of law involved in the present case is 'whether, the learned First Appellate Court is required to appreciate the facts and law involved in the Regular First Appeal or not?'2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent as well as ejectment from the rented premises against the defendant-appellant.3. The provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 are not applicable, on the properties owned by Dargah Committee, therefore, the suit was filed after service of notice on the defendant terminating his tenancy, as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act.4. Learned Lower Court decreed the suit and passed a decree of ejectment against defendant. Being aggrieved with the same a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. was preferred before the District & Sessions Judge, which was transferred for disposal to the Court of Additional...
Niranjan Lal Todi (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. and ors. Vs. Ram R ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2987; 2006(4)WLC483
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1st March, 1977 passed by the Civil Judge, Sikar, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 73/1973, whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.3.1971 passed by the Munsiff, Sikar, in Civil Suit No. 177/1969, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellants for eviction was decreed.2. This court, vide order dated 6.10.1978, framed the following substantial questions of law involved in this second appeal:1. Whether in a case where the defendant denies the title of the plaintiff, the prima facie evidence about the ownership of the prop-erty in question is relevant or not and can be looked and considered by the Court or not? If so, what is the effect of the same when the learned Civil Judge ignored the said evidence holding it to be an irrelevant and unnecessary?2. Whether any adverse inference can be drawn against th...
Harki Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR887]; RLW2007(1)Raj206
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner Hirki Bai has filed the present writ petition assailing the show cause notice dated 8.10.2002 (Annex. 4) whereby her services were sought to be terminated on the ground that she did not possess the requisite educational qualification of eligibility for appointment on the ost of cook. She further prayed that the respondents be directed to regularize her services as Class IV from the date of initial appointment.2. As per Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963 (for short hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1963), the petitioner was initially appointed on 25.8.1987 on the post of cook on temporary basis on fixed pay of Rs. 286/- per month as would be evident from the schedule appended to order dated 27.9.1997 (Annex. 3).3. One Shankar Lal Meena filed a writ petition in representative capacity for regularization of services of all part time Class IV employees working in various Hostels under the Tribal Area Dev...
Narendra Singh Tomar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj17; 2006(4)WLC417
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Death struck Geeta Devi, a house wife, all of a sudden, at a time, most unlikely. She was neither careful nor beware. She never thought even in her dreams that her servant, who was sleeping on the floor of her drawing room on the fateful night, would become enemy of all faith reposed in him and kill her. Narendra, the appellant herein, was nabbed for committing murder of Geeta Devi and put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jaipur District Jaipur, who vide judgment dated January 22, 2003 convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and Fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.2. The prosecution story is woven like this:Shyam Sunder Goenka, was residing along with his wife Geeta Devi, old mother and servant Narendra in Sector 3 of Kesri Chand Chaudhari Nagar Bagru. On August 1, 1994 while his mother had gone to Jaipur to reside with his elder son,...
In Re: Tci Infrastructure Finance Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC359; RLW2007(2)Raj1596
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The present applicant company has taken out this Judge's summons under Rule 71 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 praying for an order under Sub-section (6) of Section 391 of the Companies Act for stay of continuation of proceedings pending in Debt Recovery Tribunal and various courts of Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi.2. Mr. K.D. Garg, the Executive Director of the applicant company in the additional affidavit stated that HUDCO a secured creditor of the applicant company has initiated following proceedings against the applicant company:(a) Original application No. 64/2004 pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal (1) Delhi, titled as HUDCO v. TCI Finance Infrastructures Ltd. and Ors.(b) Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending before Ms. Geetanjali Goyar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court New Delhi (CC No. 1028/03, R. No. 30).(c) Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending before Sh. Sh. Gauttam Manan, M...
Anandi Lal and ors. Vs. Bhairu Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC699
ORDERG.S. Sarraf, J.1. The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 26.9.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur.2. An unfortunate accident took place at about 2.30 p.m. on 6.2.1991 where the deceased Ram Lal was run over by truck RNJ-935 insured by respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. Claimant-appellant No. 1 is the father, claimant-appellant No. 2 is the mother and claimant-appellant Nos. 3 to 5 are brothers and sister of the deceased Ram Lal. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and passed an award of Rs. 72,000 in favour of the claimant-appellants. Aggrieved by this judgment/award the claimant-appellants have filed this appeal.3. The short controversy involved in this case is that whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is fair and adequate.4. I have heard the...
Dil Kaur and ors. Vs. Sohrab Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC188
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 5.12.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur.2. The facts in brief are that at about 7.00-7.30 a.m. on 12.10.1990 when the deceased Ram Chandra was standing on his side of the road near Thana Chandwaji a truck bearing No. RNS-4278 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 hit the deceased Ram Chandra as a result of which he died on the spot. The truck belonged to respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company. Claimant-appellant No. 1 is the widow and claimant-appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are sons and daughters of the deceased Ram Chandra. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and passed an award of Rs. 1,32,600 in favour of the claimant-appellants. Aggrieved by this judgment/award the claimant-a...
Prahlad and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3063
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Dead body of Ramdev was found in a house that was locked from outside. Prahlad, Ganesh, Smt. Nathi and Smt. Jadav, the appellants herein, were nabbed for the murder of Ramdev and put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kekri (Ajmer), who vide judgment dated July 11, 2002 convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 342/34 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.Under Section 201/34 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three month.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is as under:On March 28, 2000 at 6.30 p.m. informant Sohni (PW-20) submitted a written r...
Suresh Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC724; 2008ACJ1185; [2006(111)FLR65]; RLW2006(4)Raj2925; 2006(3)WLC782
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The admitted facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant was working as Revenue Inspector under the Suratgarh Municipality on 7.5.1998 while he was driving the vehicle of Municipality. On that day, at about 1 A.M. tyre of the jeep burst and an accident took place, as a result of which the appellant suffered severe injury, which resulted in amputation of has right leg.3. Information of the accident was given to the employer on 7.5.1998 and notice under the Workmen Compensation Act was given to the Municipality on 3.3.1999, however, no compensation was paid under the aforesaid Act. He, therefore, lodged a claim before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sriganganagar. The vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company. Since the Municipal Board did not appear to contest after notice, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. The Insurance Company contested the claim inter alia on the ground that the vehicle was b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »