Rajasthan Court December 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.
Rameshwar Vs. Addl. Civil Judge (Jd) No. 1 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN72
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The trial Court by one line order held that no new issue is needed despite the fact that the petitioner submitted written statement and according to the petitioner, written statement raises new issues which are not already framed.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial Court examined the pleadings and thereafter held that no new issue is needed. It is submitted that if the petitioner thought that some new issue arises, then he could have moved appropriate application.4. It appears from the impugned order that the trial Court, after filing of the written statement, in one line ordered that no new issue is required to be framed. The order is non-speaking order and, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court has held that no new issue is needed, in the light of the arguments submitted by counsel for the petitioner.5. Be it as it may be, the Court may frame the issue at any stage and, therefore, it ...
Omwati (Smt.) Vs. Raja Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN240
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner/defendant is aggrieved against the order dt. 02.06.2007 by which the appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs preferred on the refusal of the injunction on their application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC by the trial Court vide order dt. 24.03.2007.3. Brief facts of the case are that three plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of contract dt. 10.05.1979, in the year 2006 alleging that Sher Singh agreed to sell land belonging to him for his legal necessity and for that purpose, he gave power of attorney to his brothers Kartar Singh and Dalbar Singh who executed agreement to sell in plaintiffs' favour. Sale deed has not been executed in pursuance of said agreement by the time when present suit was filed in the year 2005. Total land measuring was 9 bighas 18 biswas and total consideration agreed was Rs. 12,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, the entire consideration was paid...
The Management, Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN38
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Labour Court Bharatpur vide award dt. 26.04.1995 answered the reference in favour of respondent workman (for short 'workman') holding that retrenchment/termination of the workman was violative of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules and workman was entitled to be reinstated in service. The appellant employer (for short 'employer') on one hand assailed the award of Labour Court by filing writ petition, the workman on the other hand filed writ petition seeking mandamus to implement the award. Learned Single Judge vide order dt. 12.02.1997 decided both the writ petitions in favour of the workman. The employer in these appeals has impugned the orders of learned Single Judge and the Labour Court.2. Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the employer canvassed that workman was a daily wager and did not work between 07.04.1992 to 11.04.1992. The question of considering the workman senior did not arise at all and provisi...
Kailash Devi (Smt.) Vs. Addl. Distt. Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN229
Writ Petition Allowed.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's application filed on 04.02.2006 for amending the written statement was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the amendment cannot be allowed after some delay in view of the amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.3. Since by this amendment, the petitioner wants to raise a legal objection to the effect that whether pre-emption can be enforced on a property held on lease basis? Since the objection is an objection of law only, therefore, the trial Court should not have refused this objection to be incorporated in the written statement and should have allowed the amendment because it goes to the root of the matter.4. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dt. 31.03.2006 is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner dt. 04.02.2006 is allowed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›