Rajasthan Court April 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.
Maya Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC839; RLW2008(1)Raj276
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Tack), Baran, vide its judgment and order dated 6.8.2002, in Sessions Case No. 125/2001, while acquitting the accused Bhupenpal S/o Gorpal, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Mayadevi W/o Gorpal, as under:---------------------------------------------------------------------Under Section Sentence---------------------------------------------------------------------304B, IPC To undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonmentand a Tine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment offine, to further undergo three monthsadditional rigorous imprisonment498A, IPC To undergo one year's simple imprisonmentand a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment offine, to further undergo one month'sadditional simple imprisonment.---------------------------------------------------------------------Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Being aggrieved with the above judgment passed by the trial court, the accused-appellant Ma...
Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj918
Guman Singh, J.1. Prakash, the appellant herein was put to trial before the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and District and Sessions Judge, Dholpura, in Sessions Case No. 59/2002. The learned trial Judge vide his Judgment dated 11.8.2005, convicted the appellant Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six month's imprisonment. For the offence Under Section 341 IPC, a Fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed and in default of payment of fine to undergo six days imprisonment. While the appellant was acquitted for the offence Under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989').2. The brief facts of the case are that the informant Meer Singh lodged a written report (Ex.P.10) at Police Station Kanchanpura, on 31....
Allied Industries Vs. Mool Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2937
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal challenges the order dated 5.6.2006 passed by Workman Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Commissioner has granted a compensation of Rs. 78,087/- along with an interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 3.6,1999 in favour of Mool Chand Kumawat, the respondent No. 1.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Mool Chand was working at the factory owned by the appellant. On 3.6.1999, wen he was working on the Lathe machine, his left hand was caught in the machine. Consequently, he lost two fingers and sustained a fracture in this thumb; and the smallest finger. At the time of his accident, he was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. Despite the notice sent by Mool Chand to the appellant on 21.8.1999, the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act of 1923' for short) was not paid to him. Thus, he filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner for a compensation of Rs. 1,56,175/-.3. The appellant filed their reply ...
Sakunat (Smt.) and ors. Vs. M.A.C.T. Deeg and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1606; RLW2007(4)Raj3018
Rafiq, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.2.2006 (Ann. 1) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deeg whereby the said Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- as interim- compensation to the petitioners-claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On an application filed on behalf of the petitioners-claimants for disbursement of the compensation amount, the Tribunal vide order dated 24.7.2006 (Ann. 2) issued directions for disbursement of an amount of Rs. 1 4,945/-only out of total amount of interim-compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Rest amount of Rs. 35,000/- was directed to be kept under the fixed deposit in the name of Smt. Shakunat for a period of seven years,3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-complainants argued that the interim-compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 is in the nature of immediate relief and, therefore, the amount so awarded-cannot be directed to be invested like t...
Praveen Chand JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN458
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 respondents to reimburse him the full and actual expenses incurred by him towards his Open Heart Surgery done in Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi and other expenses incurred in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur as also in M.G. Hospital, Bhilwara along with interest @ 12% per annum.2. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that the petitioner retired as Male Nurse Grade-I from State Government service on 31.12.1997 and he is a member of Pensioners Medical Scheme. On 24.08.2002, the petitioner was admitted to M.G. Hospital, Bhilwara and on being found that he was suffering from Anteroseptal Wall Myocardial Infarcation. On 28.08.2002, he was referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, where Angiography was done on 06.09.2002 and it was detected that the petitioner was suffering from Triple Vessel Disease and he underwent Bye-pass Open Heart Surgery ...
MartIn and Harris Pvt. Ltd and anr. Vs. Rajendra Mehta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN329
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The dispute over provisional rent under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act of 1950', for short) has brought the parties before this Court. The appellants the tenants are challenging the order dt. 09.01.2004 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur to the extent the learned Judge has determined the provisional rent of the premises rented to the appellants @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per month.2. This case has a checkered history. One Mr. Prem Chand Khinduka (henceforth to be referred to as 'the previous owner', for short) was the owner of a building, popularly known as the 'Khinduka Bhawan', situated at 2844, Circle No. 13, New Colony, Chowki Hawali, Jaipur. It is a two story high building. Vide lease deed dt. 01.08.1963, which was registered on 10.09.1963, he let out the front part of the premises to the appellant Company. Since the appellant Company needed more space in the premise...
Chairman, Municipal Board and anr. Vs. Mahavir Prasad Sharma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1999
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner Municipal Board, Sri Madhopur seeks to challenge the Award dated 26.4.2002 passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur in LCR No. 866/1998 whereby retrenchment of the respondent-workman w.e.f. 3.5.1993 has been held to be unjustified and illegal and the workman has been ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service as well as full back wages.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case, as per the workman, are that the respondent-workman was appointed on 1.7.1991 as Naka Guard-cum-Electrician and thereafter, he continuously worked upto 3.5.1993 and has completed 240 days. The impugned retrenchment order has been passed in utter violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act')- The workman further raised the grievance of violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act by stating that persons junior to him have been continued and further he has not been ...
Madan Lal Vs. Smt. Puspa Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2171
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction of her tenant from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal bonafide necessity.3. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 7.2.2002 dismissed the plaintiff's suit after holding that though the defendant has committed default in payment of rent but since the defendant is entitled to benefit under Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950'), as he has deposited arrears of rent and paid rent month by month during pendency of suit, therefore, the decree of eviction cannot be passed against the defendant on the ground of first default. Meaning thereby, the defendant was granted benefit of first default under Section 13(6) of the Act of 1950. So far as ground of plaintiff's bonafide necessity is concerned, that was rejected by the trial court.4. Being aggrieved against the dis...
Jyoti Devi Soni (Smt.) Vs. Gouri Shankar Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3347
Guman Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.4.2002, passed by Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, whereby petition of the husband-respondent filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the marriage solemnized between the parties on 25.5.1994 was dissolved. It was further ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1000/- for her-self and Rs. 500/- for her minor daughter from the respondent-husband.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the respondent-husband filed an application for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant solemnized as per Hindu Rites on 25.5.1994 on the ground of cruelty. It was further alleged that ever since the marriage the appellant wife treated the respondent-husband and his family members with cruelty and she failed to perform her matrimonial obligations. She used to quarrel on petty matters and abused them and even threatened the respondent-h...
Amita Sharma (Smt.) Vs. Nanag Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj535
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment dated April 10, 2003 of the learned Judge Family Court No. 1, Jaipur whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction instituted by Smt. Chhota Devi (now deceased) was ordered to be abated.2. Before proceeding further it will be useful to notice the scheme of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short '1984 Act') that was enacted with a view to provide for establishment of Family Courts to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. The Bill inter alia placed before Parliament sought to:A. Provide for establishment of Family Courts by the State Governments:B. Make it obligatory on the State Governments to set up a Family Court in every city or town with a population exceeding one million;C. Enable the State Governments to set up, such courts, in areas other than those specified in (b) above;D. Exclusively provide within ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »