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.
Kushal Karan Vs. Lrs. of Anantram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN270
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, by which the Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appellant is also aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, by which the trial Court only partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction and did not grant the full relief to the appellant-plaintiff and further aggrieved against the judgment and decree, by which the First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's appeal against the trial Court judgment and decree dated 15th May, 1989, denying full relief to the appellantplaintiff.3. It appears from the facts of the case that as back as in the year, 1950, the land in dispute was purchased by the defendant. Before that, his prececessor-in-title obtained permission from the Municipal Board, Jodhpur for constructing a 'Chabutari' meas...
Jai Prakash Chobisa Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN296
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 consider his case for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr. II under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rule of 1971' hereinafter).2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been denied consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr. II on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the qualification of Higher Secondary with Science as optional Subject. He submits that the petitioner has passed the higher secondary with Agriculture Science as optional subject and the expression science has a wide meaning which includes the agriculture science as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. RLW 1995 (1) (Raj.) 222. Learn...
Purshottam Bhatra Vs. Family Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN7
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The son, appellant herein, who has challenged the order of maintenance passed by learned Family Court in favour of his old mother and father, perhaps forgotten that youth is not permanent and old age takes away all energy physical, mental and intellectual.2. The respondents No. 2 and 3 in this appeal are the father and mother of appellant. When the appellant refused to maintain them and started living separately, the parents moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Family Court No. 1 Jaipur with the averments that they were respectively of the age of 82 and 76 years and because of old age they were incapable to do any work and unable to maintain themselves. The appellant being their legitimate son was duty bound to provide them bread, clothes, tea, milk, medicines etc. The appellant is a Government servant and has been receiving salary in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The appellant is capable to provide maintenance to ...
Sohan Lal Pugalia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN396
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th September, 1999, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer, by which the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.3. The Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted its offer for the work in pursuance of the notice inviting tender and at that time the minimum wages for the labour was Rs. 22/- per day. This minimum wage was increased by the Government Notification dt. 12th July, 2004 to Rs. 34/- per day. It is also submitted that since the rate was increased statutorily by the Government and as per the term of the contract, the petitioner was bound to pay the minimum wages to the labour, therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case Tarapore & Co. v. State of M.P. : [1994]1SCR1012 the dispute with re...
Preeto Bai (Smt.) Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN180
Ashok Parihar, J.1. In a case of death the petitioner was allowed Rs. 50,000/- as an interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deeg vide order dt. 12.09.2006. Out of Rs. 50,000/- only Rs. 10,000/- was released to the petitioner. Remaining Rs. 40,000/have been ordered to be kept in fixed deposit for six years. The interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is paid to the claimants only to meet out the immediate hardship caused due to accident. In case of death, it will not be proper and justified for the Tribunal to keep the major amount of interim compensation in fixed deposit. It is only at the final stage, the appropriate amount can be kept in fixed deposit considering the facts of each case.2. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, since the claim has to be decided by the Tribunal finally taking evidence of both the parties, considering the hardship caused to the petitioner due to death of...
Pooran Singh Vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1000
Harbana Lal, J.1. This review petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein-after called in short 'the CPC) seeks review of the judgment dated 4.3.1997 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal (as he then was) in Civil Second Appeal No. 244/1994 vide which the appeal has been allowed and the judgments of the learned courts below have been set-aside remitting the matter back to the trial Court with the direction to pass fresh judgment excluding notification dated 23.9.1965 (Ex. 1).2. A civil original suit being No. 6/1976 came to be filed in the court of Additional Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Bayana District Bharatpur on 23.2.1982. After trial the suit was decreed relying upon the entry of Wakf property in the record of Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs and the revenue record of Settlement Department in addition to other evidence produced in the suit. The appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed on 1.3.1994 up-hol...
Ganesh Lal Vs. the Judge, Industrial Disputes Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR780]; RLW2007(2)Raj1222
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2063/03 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by petitioner Ganesh Lal (for short 'the workman' hereinafter) and writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4198/01 filed by the State and Ors. (for short 'the employer' hereinafter) the award dated 16.5.2001 passed by nonpetitioner, the Judge, Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur (for short 'the Industrial Tribunal' hereinafter) in Labour Case No. 135/97, has been impugned, whereby the reference made by the State Govt. under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act' hereinafter) was answered and it has been held that the retrenchment of the workman w.e.f. 1.6.1992 is illegal and instead of ordering reinstatement, the Industrial Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 41,000/- in favour of the workman.2. Since both the writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and arise out of ...
Baltej Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1395
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition by way of public interest litigation has been filed by as many as twelve residents of Pilibanga township of district Hanumangarh with the prayer that the respondents be directed to remove illegal encroachments and unauthorized constructions raised by those mentioned in Annexure P/27 in the middle of the Kharlia Road and Nehru Dharamshala Road as shown in the enclosed map of the Pilibanga Agriculture Marketing Yard/Shopping Area. It has been asserted in the writ petition that Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pilibanga set up an agricultural marketing yard(for short' the Yard') as per the plan approved by the Chief Town Planner-cum-Architectural Adviser of the Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, The plan of the yard was approved in the year 1964 according to which sufficiently wide public roads were left open. One such road which was originally named as Hospital Road has now come to be known as Kharlia Road. This road starts from Nat...
Madan Singh Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2685; 2006(3)WLC704
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff is challenging the order dated 13.7.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Alwar whereby he has remanded the case back to the trial Court after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2001.2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant is a Member of O.B.C. Community. He did his B.Sc. and B.Ed, from a recognized University. In April, 1994 the Zila Parishad, Alwar advertised vacancies for the post of Teacher Gr. III. In all, there were 480 vacancies for the said post. Since the appellant was hopeful, he applied for the same. According to the merit list prepared by the Government, the appellant had secured 83.74% marks. However, when the merit list was published, name of one Hazari Lal was shown at Serial No. 2 and also at Serial No. 3. Thus, the same name was repeated twice. After the publication of the said list, the candidates were called for interview. Although, the appellant was eligible to be called for interview,...
Amar Lal @ Amar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1010
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The testimonies of two child witnesses, the alleged murder of their mother, the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC, for short) has brought the appellants before this Court. The appellants are challenging the judgment dated 25.8.1999, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and has sentenced them to Life Imprisonment and has fined them with Rs. 1000/- each and to further undergo a term of two years of simple imprisonment in default thereof.2. In a nutshell, the story of the prosecution is that on 1.4.1998, Ram Swaroop (P.W. 2) orally lodged a report at the Police Station Chechat about an alleged incident that took place in the evening of the same day. According to the complainant, 'he and his younger brother and sisters, along with their mother, Naudhan Bai, were returning from their fields. As they came near ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »