Rajasthan Court January 2007 Judgments
Saraswati Devi (Smt.) Vs. Maharao Brajraj Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2676
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant-a poor widow-is pitted against the former Maharaja of Kota the respondent before this Court. She seeks the refuge of this Court in order to protect her alleged property from the Maharaja's muscle men. She is challenging the Order dated 28.1.06, passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Kota whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellant's second temporary injunction application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short).2. The factual matrix of the case is rather chequered. According to the appellant, her late husband used to be a 'Poddar' of the Late Maharao Bhim Singhji of Kota, (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Late Maharao', for short), the father of the Respondent No. 1. The post of 'Poddar' used to be an office of status and confidence in the State times. It seems in 1980, agricultural land belonging to the Late Maharao, situated in Khasra No. 433, 434, 436 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Havaldar Birda Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2681
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Ex. Havaldar Birda Ram, with the prayer that the order dated 21st September, 1995 be quashed and the respondents be directed to grant him the disability benefits at the half of the life insurance cover to the tune of Rs. 37,500/- with interest @ 24% P.A. and Clause (1)(i) of Annexure 11 and Para 1(a) of communication-cum-order dated 19.ll.1985.be declared illegal and quashed.2. According to the petitioner, he was enrolled in the Indian Army on 30th September, 1963 and was allotted to the Intelligence Corps. Every member of the armed forces is covered by the risk under the Army Group Insurance Scheme (for short 'the A.G.I.S.'). In the event of any untoward incident or happenings in that if an army personnel is met with any accident resulting into either death or disability, he is entitled to receive the benefit of insurance claim provided under the said scheme. He being a member of A.G.I.S., monthly premium was deducted from his ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN357
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant State and perused the record.2. Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Pali vide his judgment dated 10.08.2002 had acquitted accused persons of the offences under Sections 302/34, 308/34, 482 and 120-B, I.P.C.3. A motor cycle driven by deceased Dala Ram who was accompanied with pillion rider Harnath P.W. 21 met with an accident with Tata Sumo. As a result of injuries sustained in the said collusion Dala Ram the driver of the Motor Cycle died and Harnath received injuries. In the FIR it was alleged that accident was deliberately caused by the respondents because of strain relationship between Dala Ram and the accused persons. It was alleged that co-accused persons having rivalry with said Dala Ram had assaulted him in past also and for that a case was already pending against the accused persons. Due to that enmity the deliberate accident was caused.4. The trial Judge found that there is no reliable evidence on the basis of which it...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Yakub @ Mohd. Hussain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN307
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant State and perused the record.2. We are satisfied that there is no evidence worth the name to connect the accused with the murder of deceased Sikander. There is no direct evidence nor there was any accusation against any specified person. Only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the last seen evidence of which the only witness is P.W. 16 Mohd. Jameel. Perusal of the statement of P.W. 16 Mohd. Jameel does not inspire any confidence to link the accused respondent with the crime with any reasonable certainty excluding any other person to be perpetrator of the crime. Rather P.W. 16 Mohd. Jameel appears to be a chance witness, who is stated to have settled just about 2 or 3 months prior to the incident. According to his statement he is a carpenter and his presence at the taxi stand appears to be sheer co-incidence on the date Sikander is alleged to have taken vehicle from Deedwana to another place.3. Accordingly, we do not f...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Singh Vs. the Judge, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Labo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR777]; RLW2007(2)Raj1692
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annx.P/2 dated 7.11.2001 made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Shyamnagar, Jaipur (for short, 'the Labour Court' hereinafter) , as also the order Annx.P/5 dated 4.9.2002.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that on a reference made by the Appropriate Government to the Labour Court regarding industrial dispute, the petitioner filed a statement of claim. Reply to the claim petition was filed by the non-petitioners. The matter was posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner-workman on 7.11.2001. The matter was called in the early hours of the Labour Court but neither the petitioner-workman nor his representative appeared and the Labour Court passed a 'no dispute award' vide order Annx.P/2 dated 7.11.2001. At 12:00 O'cloc...
Tag this Judgment!Rama and ors. Vs. Smt. Dharmi Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN63
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. No one appeared for the respondents inspite of service.2. This appeal is directed against the order of learned District Judge, Sirohi dated 15.09.2006, alowing the appeal filed by the present appellants and setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court.3. The decree has been set aside by the lower Appellate Authority solely on the ground that statement given on behalf of plaintiffs by their power of attorney holder, who has not deposed on personal knowledge of facts, cannot be substituted as the plaintiff's statement and, therefore, decree could not be founded on the statement of power of attorney holder. However, considering the procedural defect, inasmuch as the plaintiffs have been misled due to the fact that power of attorney has been examined and their personal appearance may not be not necessary, the learned District Judge, Sirohi instead of dismissing the suit itself has remanded the matter back to the trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!V.D. Agro Tech. Ltd. Vs. United Insurance Co. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN293
Rajesh Balia, J.1. An application had been moved under Section 10/11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the Fire Policy agreement between the applicant and the respondent-Insurance Company contained an arbitration Clause that in case any dispute arises in respect of claim, the matter may be referred to the Arbitrator.2. The parties having failed to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the agreement in respect of which the applicant having sent a notice under Section 11 calling upon the respondents to act in accordance with the arbitration agreement by referring the dispute to the arbitrator, an application was moved under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 before the District Court, Sriganganagar.3. However, considering the decision of Supreme Court in S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Ors. reported in DNJ (S.C.) 2005 957 that the Chief Justice's designate under Section 11 cannot be a District Judge and has to be a sitting High Court Judge, the application was transmitte...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sundar Paras Ram and Party Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1147
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Under challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 29.3.1994 whereby the District Excise Officer, Kota directed for adjustment of a sum of Rs. 45 lacs against the amount of security deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner was holder of exclusive privilege licence holder for wholesale and retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Beer and retial sale of country liquor for Kota group of shops for the year 93-94 and 94-95. When the licence is granted under exclusive system, the licensee agrees to make payment of such lump sum instead of or in addition to the excise duty as may be determined by the Excise Commissioner on the basis of details given. In the present case, the grievance has been raised only with respect to the exclusive privilege amount of the country liquor licence. According to the condition of the contract, monthly installment of exclusive privilege amount is required to be deposited by 10th of each succeeding month and rebate as prescribe...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2056
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on similar set of facts same prayers have been made, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. The land measuring 81 bigha 19 biswa was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). Subsequently, notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 27.3.1992. The land sought to be acquired for the purpose of development and expansion of industrial area for the respondent No. 3 - RIICO also included about 21 bigha 6 biswa land of the petitioners. After completion of the proceedings the first award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 18.4.1994 in regard to the Land measuring 34 bigha 4 biswa. The award in regard to remaining land could not be passed in view of some interim orders passed by the courts Thereafter, award in regard to remaining land measuring 4 bigha 10 biswa was also pas...
Tag this Judgment!Saboo Sodium Chloro Ltd. Vs. Sambhar Salts Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2217
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant is challenging the Order dated 10.5.2006, passed by the District and Sessions Judge Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has rejected the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short) by the appellant against the award dated 24.8.2000 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 had entered into a contract whereby the respondent No. 1 had agreed to supply 30,000 Metric Ton (MT) plus or minus 15% of 'kyar salt' to the appellant @ of Rs. 394/- PMT (per Metric Ton). The said salt was to be duly loaded into trucks in loose. The contract was for a period of one year, namely from 1.8.96 to 31.7.97. The prices were framed and on escaltation provision during the currency of the contract was envisaged. As per Clause 89 of the Contract an Earnest Money deposit amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be furnished in the sh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »