Rajasthan Court January 2007 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.
Nagarpalika Vs. Sunder Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN208
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dt. 01.03.2005 by which the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent and held that the appellant has no right to evict the respondent.3. Brief facts of the case are that the land in question is a small piece of land measuring 15 X 15 feet. For this according to the plaintiff, the Gram Panchayat, Sanwar issued patta on 28.11.1971 in favour of the plaintiff after taking cost of the land. The appellant Municipal Board, Fatehnagar issued a public notice for sale of several plots including plot in dispute in the year 1986 upon which, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction claiming that he is owner of the plot, therefore, the appellant cannot auction the plot.4. In the trial Court, the appellant/defendant submitted that the area falling in the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Sanwar was transferred to defendant Municipal Board, Fa...
Shagufta and ors. Vs. Avnish Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN1
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally.2. Only short question involved in this appeal is whether the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner erred in allowing the review petition filed by the owner/respondent.3. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that the appeal itself may be decided in view of the fact that above question of law is involved in this appeal.4. It is not in dispute that the power of review can be given by Statute to an authority and in case, the Statute has not given the power of review to an authority to review its own order, then the authority cannot review of its own order.5. In the present case, the award was passed by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in favour of the appellant awarding compensation and also imposed penalty of Rs. 92,085/-. The employer submitted an application for review of the said award on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not given to the owner before imposing penalty by the Workmen's Com...
Executive Engineer Vs. Vijay Dutt Vyas and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN229
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant challenges the order of learned Single Judge dated 17.05.2005.3. The chequered history of the case shows that the respondent was in the employment of the appellant and his services were terminated on 01.07.1982. The termination of service was made subject matter of industrial dispute which was decided by Labour Court, Jodhpur vide award dated 16.02.1987. The termination of services vide order dated 01.07.1982 was held to be invalid and direction was issued to reinstate the workman and to allow the backwages w.e.f. 01.08.84. The present appellant was directed to reinstate the workman within one month from the date of the award and to pay arrears.4. According to the respondent workman he appeared before the employer to join his duties on 01.05.1987 but he was not allowed to join the duties until 07.07.1989. In the first instance the respondent workman made an application under Section 33C[2] for quantific...
Municipal Board Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN374
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 19.09.1992 by which the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff respondent Jagdish Prasad and passed the decree for injunction against the appellant-defendant with respect to the land measuring 413 ft. x 145 ft. situated near the Post Office of Tara Nagar.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-appellant with the plea that the land in question originally belonging to the plaintiff's ancestors Sandu, Shivnand and Bali, for which a patta was issued by the erstwhile Bikaner State in the Samvat year 1936 for a consideration of Rs. 20/-. The patta is dated Chaitra Vadi-11, Samvat year 1936. The plaintiff gave the neighborhood of the land as it was in the Samvat Year 1936 and thereafter in para 6 gave the neighborhood which were the neighborhood of the land in question at the time of the filling of the s...
Bishanlal Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN380
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The land originally belonged to one Devlal. After death of Devlal, the mutation was made in the name of three sons namely, Bhanwarlal, Kesrilal and Heeralal. All the three brothers alleged to had equal share in the entire land. Subsequently, Kesrilal died unmarried. Bhanwarlal had already died prior to the death of Kesrilal. After the death of Kesrilal his share of the land was mutated in the name of Heeralal in the year 1977.2. Subsequently, a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner Bishanlal son of Bhanwarlal alleging that since Heeralal had gone in adoption 50 years back, the petitioner should have been declared sole tenant of the share of the land belonged to Kesrilal. Accepting the plea of adoption, the trial Court decreed the suit vide order and decree dt. 01.03.1986 declaring the petitioner as the sole tenant of the land belonging to Kesrilal. The above order came to be challenged by legal heirs of Heeralal before...
Sudhir Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1246
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The aforementioned five criminal appeals and one criminal revision petition, arises out of the common judgment dated 28.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu whereby accused appellants - (1) Ishwar Singh, (2) Pramendra @ Pappu, (3) Vinod Kumar, (4) Jai Singh, (5) Jagveer, (6) Tejpal @ Teja, (7) Dharmendra, (8) Rajpal, (9) Sudhir Kumar, (10) Jai Pal Singh, (11) Jai Singh S/o Shri Mam Chand, (12) Hukmi Chand and (13) Nihal Singh @ Nihala, were convicted for offence u/s 148 1PC and each of them was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment and were also convicted for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 149, IPC and each of them was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. All the accused appellants were convicted for offe...
Laddu Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ907
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Jai Laxmi @ Suraiya, a retarded woman, was admitted to Retarded & Child Rehabilitation Home Sethi Colony Jaipur. On a letter bearing No. 861 dated August 5, 1994 (Ext. P-15) forwarded by Superintendent & Principal, of the said Rehabilitation Home in regard to rape committed with Jai Laxmi, FIR No. 223/1994 was registered at Police Station Ja,wahar Nagar Jaipur under Section 376 IPC and investigation commenced. Jai Laxmi was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate, other necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Laddu Gopal, the appellant herein, along with Asha Devi and Poonam Chauhan were placed on trial before Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track) Jaipur City, who vide judgment dated February 26, 2002 convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(c) IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine Rs. 1,000/- in default to...
Sripal Satyapal Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Raj)337
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dt. 14th May, 2002 relating to the asst. yr. 1990-91.The substantial question of law framed at the time of appeal dt. 4th Sept., 2002 reads as under:Whether the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim for set off of business loss of Rs. 2,54,068 in the hands of the appellant by applying Section 43(5) of the IT Act, 1961 and treating the same as speculative loss merely for the reason that transportation charges were not shown to be paid by the appellant ?2. The facts necessary for the present purpose are that the assessee is cotton merchant and carries on business of purchase and sale of cotton bales. In the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1990-91 that is to say for the accounting period ending on 31st March, 1990 amongst other 22 transactions of cotton bales took place which were held by the AO to be speculative transactions. Profit and loss arising therefrom were held to be speculative profit ...
Rekha (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN356
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order.2. Both these bail applications arise out of a common FIR No. 29/2005, therefore, they are decided by this common order.3. The contention of learned Counsel is that in the dying declaration of the deceased, the deceased has not involved the accused petitioners. It is also submitted that accused petitioners are sister-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased. It is further submitted that after 46 days of the incident, case has been registered against the accused petitioners, therefore, cases of the petitioners be considered for bail.4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications.5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the dying declaration and the fact that after 46 days of the incident, cases have been registered without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I think it...
Valing and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN18
N.N. Mathur, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 28.06.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the writ petition.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants-petitioner's father was in possession of the land in Khasra No. 220 in village Badgaon measuring two and half bighas. It is averred that after the death of father of appellants namely Vaktaq Patel, the present appellants Valing and Amreng came in possession over the said land. The said land has been allotted for the construction of a school. The allotment was challenged by the appellants before the Revenue Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed by the order dated 15.18.1989. The said order has been confirmed by the Board of Revenue.4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the appellants petitioners being in possession over the subject land for long, therefore, they were entitled for the regularisation of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »