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.
Vimal Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Roop Narayan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2613
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants, who are the parents and brothers of the deceased. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 154 days. However, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned merely in the interest of justice to the parties, although no sufficient cause has been shown by them.2. In so far as the merit of the appeal is concerned, it appears that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa awarded a sum of Rs. 2,85,000- to the legal representatives of the deceased after computing his income as Rs. 3,000- per month. The parents and the brothers of the deceased, feeling aggrieved with the same, preferred an appeal before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed as the appellants had failed to serve the notices on the respondents, against which this special appeal has been preferred.3. The counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that the income of the deceased was not properly computed by the Tribunal as the deceased ...
Pradeep Sen Vs. Smt. Sudha Mehta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1261
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated April 15, 1999 of the Judge Family Court No. 1, Jaipur whereby petition filed under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') by the appellant husband against the respondent wife was dismissed.2. The appellant husband pleaded in the petition that respondent wife was married to the appellant husband in the month of January, 1991. The marriage got registered with the Registrar of Marriage Jaipur on April 16, 1991. Prior to the marriage with the appellant the respondent wife got married with Subodh Sood in 1980 and after divorce with him she again married to Ashok Kumar Bodhra on May 28, 1986 but this time also she was divorced. In October,1989 she came into contact with appellant and they decided to marry. Immediately after the marriage the respondent wife started beating to grand mother and mother of the appellant in order to oust them from the house. The respondent compel...
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Kumaresh Gautam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2223
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. Against the order dated 25.5.2004 of rejecting the approval application Under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the act of 1947') filed by the RSRTC before the Industrial Tribunal, RSRTC filed a writ petition wherein notice was issued and on 27.4.2005 operation of the order dated 25.5.2004 was stayed.2. The respondent-workman has filed an application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 in the matter of stay of the operation of order of the industrial Tribunal, Jaipur dated 25.5.2004 whereby termination of respondent workman vide order dated 4.12.1999 was not approved Under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. No reply to the application has been filed by the respondent RSRTC.3. Submission of Mr. Gaur is that any interim or final determination of an industrial dispute as mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1947 covered either approving or not approving the order of termination made by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, Sect...
Kalyan Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3212
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The present revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 02.11.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bandikui in Sessions Case No. 3/2002, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted from the charge for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 307/149, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149.2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant party was in possession of the land in dispute regarding which civil cases were pending. The civil suit came to be decided on 21.05.99, against which it is alleged that appeal has been filed by the complainant party. The accused persons with a view to take possession of the disputed land, attacked on the complainant party armed with deadly weapons on 22.05.99 and in this incident the accused persons caused grievous injuries on the persons of the complainant party. FIR was lodged by the complainant against the accused and the police after investigation ...
Sohan Lal Vs. Smt. Pratibha Mehra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN86
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Two bank employees one serving at Ratlam (MP) and another in Ajmer (Rajasthan) came close together and their marriage was solemnized on 11.05.1993 at Ratlam according to Hindu rites. After marriage the wife (respondent) lived in the house of her husband (appellant) in Ajmer for a period of four months. Since she was a working woman she had to go back to Ratlam. The distance between the two gave rise to the dispute and the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'Act') for restitution of conjugal rights. The litigation ended on 04.03.1998. Both the parties agreed to get themselves transfer to Jodhpur so that they could reside together. Till the transfer of wife, the husband agreed to visit Ratlam frequently.2. It appears that wife did not honour the compromise decree and the husband had to file the petition under Section 13 of the Act in the Family Court on 16.04.1999 i.e. after one year of the decree under Section 9 of...
Charan Pal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN71
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order Annexure-3 dt. 29.07.2005.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. By order Annexure-2, the petitioner was transferred from Govt. Upper Primary School Khata (Rai) to Govt. Primary School 10-O, (Karan). In compliance of the order, the petitioner joined the services on the place, where he was transferred. However subsequently by order dt. 29.07.2005 (Annexure-3), the order Annexure-2 was cancelled. The order Annexure-2 has already been executed by joining the petitioner to the post at new place of posting. Thereafter, if the non-petitioner wanted to transfer the petitioner to elsewhere, they can transfer him by a fresh order and not by cancelling the previous order i.e. Annexure-2.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Gangaram Bishnoi v. State and Ors. WLR 1994 Raj 537, wherein this Court held that once tr...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN51
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Application for regularization of encroachment on Government land was submitted by one Jagannath since deceased, now been represented by his legal heirs as respondents in the present writ petition, before Naib Tehsildar on 03.07.1969. The order of regularization was passed by the Naib Teshildar on 14.07.1969 itself. Though necessary directions were sought by the District Collector from State Government for seeking reference under Section 83 of the Land Revenue Act, however, as per directions so issued, action was taken by the District Collector under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Agricultural Land Allotment) Rules of 1970. The order dt. 14.07.1969 passed by the Naib Tehsildar was set aside by the District Collector vide order dt. 19.12.1972.2. The above order passed by the District Collector came to be challenged by the contesting respondents before the Revenue Appellate Authority. While allowing the appeal vide order dt. 31.01.1987, the Revenue Appellate Authority se...
Har Lal Vs. Bajrang Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN478
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Following substantial question of law is involved in this appeal :Whether both the Courts below committed error of law in setting aside the entire sale deed executed by Gheesa Ram in favour of Heeralal on 6th March, 1997, despite the fact that admittedly, said Gheesa Ram was co-sharer in the agricultural land sold by Gheesa Ram to Harial.3. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.4. It is not in dispute now that the suit property was sold by Gheesa Ram to Harlal by registered sale deed dated 6th March, 1997 by which he sold his share which, according to him, was 9 Bighas 12 Biswas in the agricultural field No. 70 measuring 27 Bighas 8 Biswas. Both the Courts below held that since the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 7 were also having share in the property, therefore, the seller Gheesa Ram could not have sold out any land out of the joint-holding of Khasra No. 70 measuring 27 Bigha...
Krishna Kumari (Miss) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1846
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the non-petitioners to appoint her on the post of Physical Training Instructor Gr.III against General Boy OBC Category advertised in pursuance of the Advertisement Annex.5 issued on 28.7.2003.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the non-petitioners advertised the posts of Physical Training Instructor Gr.III vide Annex.5 dated 28.7.2003. In pursuance of the advertisement Annex.5, the petitioner submitted submitted an application for appointment along with her testimonials. The petitioner claims to be eligible for the said post having the requisite educational qualification. Along with the application form, the petitioner annexed the Certificates Annex. 1 and Annex.2 issued by Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Annex.3 Post Graduate Diploma in Physical Education ...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ618Raj
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Following reference was made by the Government to Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:Whether the action of the Assistant Engineer, Pachana Irrigation Sub Division-II, Sri Mahaveerji District Sawai Madhopur in terminating the services of the workmen (as per list enclosed) (who are being represented by Joint Secretary Sawai Madhopur, District irrigation Employees Union, INTAC Sri Mahaveerji) w.e.f. September 1, 1998 is justified and legal. If not, what relief and amount the workmen are entitled to?2. The respondent workmen filed statement of claim before the Labour Court on February 27, 1992 inter alia stating therein that eleven workmen were appointed under the appellants management from May 1, 1986 on the post of Beldar. They worked with devotion and honesty from the date of their engagement and there was no complaint whatsoever against them. The appellant management however by verbal order dated September 1, 1998 terminated the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »