Rajasthan Court October 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.
Ramu Devi (Smt.) Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN284
Govind Mathur, J.1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer by its award dt. 30.09.1999 awarded a compensation in a tune of Rs.3,60,000/-in favour of the petitioner and her daughter Guddi. Out of the compensation referred above, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was deposited in a Fixed Deposit in the name of the petitioner and remaining sum of Rs.1,10,000/- was to be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application dt. 17.08.2007 before the Tribunal seeking permission to draw a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- that was kept in Fixed Deposit in her name under the order dt. 30.09.1999. The claim for withdrawal of the amount was made being in need of money for completion of construction work, for marriage purpose of the daughter Guddi and to discharge certain other social responsibilities. Learned Tribunal by the order impugned dt. 22.08.2007 disposed of the application permitting the petitioner for making payment of Rs. 40,000/- out of the kept in...
Mahesh Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1259
Chatra Ram Jat, J.1. This is a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 9.1.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 22, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which he took cognizance under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C; in the Criminal Case No. 26/2007 State v. Mahesh Choudhary relating to F.I.R. No. 356/2004 at Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur.2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused-petitioner is involved in the business of manufacturing and export of hand knotted woolen carpets in the name of M/s. Saraswati Exports and similarly the complainant party is also involved in the business of manufacture and export of hand knotted woolen carpets in the name of S.B. Kapoor Exports, the complainant and the accused- petitioner agreed to promote the business of carpets and in furtherance of the aforesaid promotion of business number of transactions as well as the agreements were entered into between both the firms. One of the said agreement, is dated 1.4.2001...
Bhanwar Singh (Dr.) and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1267
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. This case has an extremely convoluted history as this case has (sic) only travelled from this Court to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but is also co-re(sic)d to a petition filed at the Principal Bench of the High Court at Jodhpur. In order (sic) understand the extent of controversy involved, it is imperative that the facts of (sic) be narrated in detail. The facts of the case are as under:2. (sic)though the present appeal has been filed by number of appellants, this Court (sic)concerned only with the case of Dr. B.L. Chopra, appellant No. 7. For, the (sic) revolves only around him.3. (sic)Dr. B.L. Chopra was initially appointed on adhoc basis on the post of Assistant Profe(sic) Orthopaedics) vide order dated 12.8.1991. The adhoc appointment was to last till candidates, regularly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R.P.S.C for short), were available. On 10.12.1993, an advertisement for regular appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors was issued by...
Manoj Kumar Vs. Rajasthan University and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN340
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The writ petition was heard on different dates in view of the fact that because of the certain contentions of the petitioner raised during argument, the respondent sought time to look into the relevant rules because of the reason that according to petitioner, the petitioner's result was wrongly withheld by the respondent-University of the Second Year MBA Course. The petitioner's contention was that in case, the result of the petitioner would have been declared in time and even if the petitioner would have failed then petitioner would have opportunity to apply for re-valuation of marks or to appear in the supplementary examination. When the respondent disclosed some facts, then petitioner came to know that he failed in securing aggregate marks in MBA Part-II Examination and, therefore, petitioner cannot get any substantial relief in this writ petition as he cannot be declared passed. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted that petitioner was entitled to grace marks an...
State Vs. Ram Charan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN468
Mahammad Rafiq, J.1. This order will dispose of the aforesaid matter seeking to cancel the bail granted to the accused non-petitioner by order of this Court, notice of which was issued by the Court suo-motu when the bail application No. 4781/07 moved by co-accused Ram Kalyan was laid before me by the coordinate bench. It was pointed out to co-ordinate bench that the basis on which bail was granted to accused Ram Charan was factually incorrect. Bail application of Ram Charan was allowed by this Court on 29.06.2007 upon Counsel for the petitioner making argument that though accused Ram Charan was arrested with his father Durga Lal on 06.04.2007, Durga Lal has already been enlarged on bail by order of this Court dt. 13.03.2007 but he was still confined in jail. Investigation has been completed and challan has been filed and the trial is likely to take long. The learned Judge hearing the bail application of Ram Kalyan in these circumstances directed that his bail application be also placed...
Jodhpur Chartered Accountant Society and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Raj)373
ORDER1. The petitioner assessee has filed this petition as a public interest litigation.2. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dt. 18th Sept., 2007, learned Counsel for respondents Mr. Bissa submitted that till today, the Department has not filed any SLP though it may be under process.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is using Saral 2D Forms since years and the change made by the Department is contrary to Section 139. The learned Counsel has relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Om Prakash Tewari v. Union of India (2007) 212 CTR (All) 377 : (2007) 163 Taxman 199 (All) wherein in para 10 the Allahabad High Court observed as under:The petitioner have alleged that the impugned r. 12 of the IT Rules, 1962, as amended by the IT (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2007, is ultra vires to the provisions of Section 139 of the IT Act as Section 139 of the IT Act requires the assessee to file along with return certain documents. The petitioners ha...
Bhonti Devi and ors. Vs. Avtar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1207
R.C. Gandhi, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 18.4.95 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City in a Claim Petition No. 39 of 1989 whereby a sum of Rs. 63,500 has been paid as compensation on account of death of a 55 years aged salaried person, on the ground that the Tribunal has not passed the genuine award, taking into consideration the salary of the deceased. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Accident took place on 11.9.1988. The income of the deceased has been proved as Rs. 3,390 per month as the deceased was drawing this amount as salary from Government Senior Secondary School, Sikrai (Dausa), Exh. 50. The salary of the deceased has not been taken into consideration while determining the compensation.3. Though, the claim petition was decided on 18.4.1995, the Second Schedule was incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act by Act 54 of 1994, effective from 14.11.1994. Tribunal should have taken into considerat...
Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1037
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Having put in service for twenty-four years, the appellant was removed from the service vide order dated 28.10.1994 on the charge of wilful absence from service for a period of two months. Although the appellant had filed a departmental appeal against the said order, his appeal was dismissed vide order dated 7.4.1995. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 28.10.1994 and 7.4.1995 before this Court. However, vide judgment dated 5.8.1996, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed as a constable in the Railway Protection Force, in the year 1968. From 1968 to till 1992, neither any charge-sheet was served upon him, nor there was any complaint about his conduct. But, on 12.9.1992, a charge-sheet was served upon him, wherein two charges were levelled, against the appellant: firstly, he was wilfully absent from duty...
Rajendra Prasad Vs. Jugal Kishore and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN171
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4431/2007 by which he dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, which was also affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal.2. The appellant is the tenant of the suit premises and the decree for eviction has been passed on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord i.e. respondent. The Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal found that the requirement of the landlord i.e. respondent is just & bonafide. The said finding is upheld by the learned Single Judge. In our view, the order of the Rent Tribunal as well as that of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which is also confirmed by the learned Single Judge, is just & proper and the said finding cannot be distrubed by this Court in this appeal. However, learned Counsel Mr. Chhangani appearing for the appellant, submits that since the premises in question is a business...
Gopal Singh Vs. the Election Tribunal-cum-cj(Sd) No. 3 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN442
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ validity, propriety and correctness of the order dt. 24.09.2007 is questioned whereby learned Election Tribunal rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for seeking amendment of issues.2. In brief, facts of the case are that in an election petition preferred by respondent Khinya Ram five issues were framed and out of those onus to prove two issues was on one Shri Durg Singh. Shri Durg Singh was a party to the election petition, however, he was subsequently deleted from the array of the respondents and, therefore, the returned candidate (present petitioner) preferred an application for amendment of issues and also to put onus on him to prove the issues those were required to be established by Shri Durg Singh.3. By the order impugned the Election Tribunal rejected the application on the count that the issues those were to be proved by Shri Durg Singh can very well be established while considering the issue No. 2. The Election Trib...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »