Rajasthan Court February 2007 Judgments
Mahesh Agrawal Vs. Vikram Agrawal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR33(Raj); RLW2007(3)Raj2153
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The dispute over the management of a hotel is the bone of contention between the parties. The appellant has challenged the Order dated 9.3.2006 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has appointed a receiver in an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act' for short) by the respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent before this Court, Vikram Agarwal filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, against the appellant, Mahesh Agrawal. According to the application, the appellant and the respondent are cousin brothers. On 27.1.1999, both of them formed a partnership for the purpose of running a business in the name and style of M/s. Surya Hotel at Jaipur. For this purpose a partnership deed was signed on 27.1.1999. The respondent claimed that in order to pursue his studies, he was out of Jaipur from 1.6.2001 to 30.4.2003. Therefore, during this pe...
Tag this Judgment!Uma (Smt.) Vs. Ramesh Sharma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2872
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petition filed by the respondent husband on the grounds of desertion and cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed by learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur vide judgment and decree dated February 6, 2002. Against this finding that the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellant wife.2. As per the facts stated in the petition, marriage between the appellant wife and respondent husband took place on May 11, 1995. Immediately after the marriage the appellant wife asked the respondent husband to reside separately from his old parents. The respondent was not in a position to fulfill this demand of appellant since he was the only son of his old and infirm parents, therefore the appellant started misbehaving with the respondent. She used to harass and humiliate the respondent and his old parents. The mother of respondent was forced to cook food, clean the house and wash clothes despite her ill health. Many a ti...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Lal Vs. Vinod Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj551
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff, who happens to be landlord, is challenging the order dated 12.7.2000 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has set aside the Judgment dated 30.3.96 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sikar and has remanded the case back to the learned trial Court for recording evidence on issue No. 7 and for deciding the suit afresh.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-respondent on the ground of bona fide necessity and on the ground of default in payment of rent. The suit premises consists of a 'Nohra' which the appellant had rented out to the respondent at a rental value of Rs. 50/- per month. The defendants filed the written statement and admitted the tenancy but denied the grounds of eviction. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed seven issues. The seventh issue was about the relief that can be granted to the appellant by th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhera Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2954
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By this revision petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity of order dated 16.10.2006 passed by the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Bhinmal whereby the learned Magistrate, in the midst of the trial, committed the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhinmal under Section 323, Cr.P.C.2. As per facts of the case, FIR No. 144 of 2001 was registered against the petitioners and after investigation the police filed charge-sheet against them for offences under Sections 447,341,323,325 and 382/34, I.P.C. During the course of trial, after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Magistrate examined the accused petitioners under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and the matter was fixed for final hearing. Arguments in the case were heard on 10.10.2006 and the case was fixed for judgment on 16.10.2006. On 16.10.2006, the learned Magistrate passed order under challenge and committed the case for trial to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhin...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Rajpurohit Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN328
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ validity, propriety and correctness of the order dt. 08.07.1999 withholding part of petitioner's pension is questioned.2. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 15.10.1988. On denial of charges, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 19.03.1996. After submission of the Enquiry Report, but before taking any decision thereupon, the petitioner stood retired from service on 30.09.1996, therefore, the matter was referred to the Governor under Rule 170 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1951 (as then was existing). A notice for tentative penalty dt. 26.03.1998 was served upon the petitioner, however, no copy of Enquiry Report was given to him, therefore, along with a separate notice a copy of the Enquiry...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Lrs. of Sawa Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN307
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.2. The appellants/defendants are aggrieved against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below vide judgments and decrees dt. 02.09.1997 and 15.10.2004.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs produced one document 'PANADI' of the year 1931 to prove his title and possession for the property in dispute. The plaintiff No. 1 was insane is the fact admitted in the plaint itself.4. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, the plaintiffs' suit was barred by time and further the two Courts below wrongly discarded the evidence produced by the appellants. It is further submitted that no enquiry was held about insanity of one of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit could not have been proceeded and consequently, no decree could have been passed by the Courts below.5. I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the reasons given by the two Courts belo...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Ben Vs. Lala and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN3
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The trial Court granted decree on 28.08.1998 against the petitioner. The suit was for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted application for setting aside of the exparte decree on 01.06.1999. According to the petitioner, she came to know about the impugned decree when he received message from Laxman on telephone at Mumbai on 23.03.1999. Since at that time, the petitioner was sick, therefore, she could not come to Sirohi from Mumbai and she could reach Sirohi on 19.05.1999 and thereafter, submitted the said application.3. According to the petitioner, a registered notice was sent to the petitioner but on that notice, a wrong address was given. It is also submitted that the notice sent by ordinary post did not return back. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted an application for condonation of delay also supported by affidavit.4. The trial Court dismissed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevan Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN54
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners on the prayer for interim relief.2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the accusedpetitioners have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 19/54A of the Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argues that the judgments of both the Courts below deserve to be set aside since there is material perversity in the finding arrived at by the trial Court inasmuch as copy of malkhana register which is the sole evidence of protecting the alleged liquor was not exhibited which only creates doubt in the prosecution case and as such benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of learned Counsel for the petitioner for the interim relief by way of suspension of sentence.4. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, it is ordered that while the petition is pending d...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Behari Mathur Vs. District and Session Judge
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR559]
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide all retiral benefits comprising of gratuity, commutation value and full pension and further seeks direction to provide arrears towards the retiral benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that arrears of pension and other retiral benefits have been paid during pendency of the writ petition and now the surviving grievance is non-payment of interest with regard to gratuity and commutation which have been delayed for a substantial period of 2 years 8 months and 19 days.3. Counsel for the respondent has justified the same account of initiation of enquiry after retirement.4. Further submission of the petitioner is that the inquiry has not been initiated.5. Heard Counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties.6. I am of the consi...
Tag this Judgment!Het Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1830; 2006WLC(Raj)UC59
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In this Habeas Corpus Petition the prayer of the petitioner is to declare his detention as illegal and to set him at liberty forthwith.2. As per the facts stated in the writ petition the petitioner has been taking active interest in politics of State of Rajasthan and he has been prominent labour leader in district Sri Ganganagar. He has also actively associated with the problem of farmers of Sri Ganganagar in particular and whole of Rajasthan in general. He is one of the prominent members of Communist Party of India (Marxists) and has distinction to represent the Assembly seat of Sangaria. He has been in the. forefront of numerous agitations launched by his party during the last four decades. It is further pleaded that in the recent past, petitioner took-up cudgels against the State Government against the State Government in the matter of chaotic water supply to farmers, whose lands lie under Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Phase-I, Many representations were made...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »