Rajasthan Court May 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.
Ritesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Chandrakanta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Raj192; RLW2007(3)Raj2465
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These two appeals were filed in this Court on 19.12.2005 without payment of any court fees. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent for cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the appellant-defendant was decreed by the trial Court on 14.9.2005 holding that the sale deed executed by one Shri Sumer Singh on 16.12.2000 in favour of the appellant-defendant, Ritesh Kumar, was liable to be cancelled as the power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff, Smt. Chandrakanta, in favour of Shri Sumer Singh, was found to be 'farji' or 'forged.'2. The office raised an objection that since no application under Section 149 of C.P.C. has been filed nor any court fees has been paid, the limitation for filing of the appeals would be computed only after filing (depositing) of the court fees.3. The appellant deposited the court fees of Rs. 15,065/- as per the valuation of the suit along with the application under Section 149 of C.P.C. on 8.9.2006. The appellant also ...
Babu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2943
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Babu, Pooran, Radhey @ Radhey Shyam and Narsi @ Narsi Ram, the appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (last Track) Hindaun City, who vide judgment dated November 22,2002 convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in . default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Under Section 323/34 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on February 21,2001 informant Mahendra Singh submitted a written report (Ex. P. 3) at Police Station Todabhim stating therein that on the said day around 11 AM while Prahlad was coming with some food articles from Ajeej Salimpur he was way-led near Tube-well by Radhey, Narsi, Ramavtar, Babu and Pooran, who were armed with lathis and Dharias, Radhey, Narsi and Babu inflicted lathi blows on the head ...
Madhu Vs. Mukesh Naiyar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC762
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. By a decree of divorce dated January 8,1999 learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur City snapped the marital ties between the appellant wife (Madhu) and respondent husband (Mukesh). Against this decree that the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by Madhu.2. Madhu and Mukesh got married according to Hindu rites on August 8,1972. Two daughters and one son viz. Meenakshi, Nidhi and Atul were born out of the wedlock. On March 18,1997 i.e. after 24 years and 7 months, Mukesh filed petition seeking divorce from Madhu under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. At that point of time age of Meenakshi was 23 years, whereas age of Atul and Nidhi was 20 and 18 years respectively. Mukesh impleaded in the petition Shiv Kumar Verma of Amritsar (Punjab) and Baldev Sagar Beri of New Delhi as co-respondents. In para 10 of the petition Mukesh pleaded that in the month of July, 1996 Shiv Kumar Ver...
Rajasthan Khadi Sangh Vs. the Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1005
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rajasthan Khadi Sangh, Chomu has preferred this appeal dissatisfied with the order dated 22.11.1996 passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court, Jaipur dated 18.10.1994.2. The brief necessary facts for decision in this appeal are thus:(a) That an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the effect inter alia whether 14 temporary workers who have not been made permanent are entitled to medical and house rent allowances like the permanent employees; not less than Rs. 20/- towards medical allowance and the house rent allowance @ 20% of the wages.(b) That the Industrial Tribunal adjudicated the aforesaid industrial dispute vide award dated 8.6.1983 holding therein that 14 employees mentioned in the list were entitled to medical allowance as is being paid to the regular employees. The said award dated 8.6.1983 attained finality.(c...
Man Kanwar (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3483
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 pay amount of State insurance on the death of her husband Nathu Singh who was a Govt. employee and died due to accident while in service.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner's husband Nathu Singh was appointed on 1.4.1988 with the respondent. While in service, on account of fire occurred he suffered burn injuries and died on 3.5.2000. An inquest report was prepared on 8/12.6.2001 which was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khajuwala. The petitioner's husband was serving with the respondent No. 3 Dy. Chief Conservator of Forest (IGNP), Stage-II, Division-I, Bikaner who sent the case to the respondents No. 1 and 2 for the payment of state insurance accruing on the death of the husband of the petitioner along with copy of the postmortem report. The respondent No. 2 vide Annex.4 dated 26.12.2001 informed ...
Jamil and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3373
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These five appeals, on behalf of seven accused persons, namely, (1) Jamil S/o Jahur Shah, (2) Siddiq S/o Mohamood Meo, (3) Netram S/o Shri Basanti Lal, (4) Rajendra S/o Sampat Ram, (5) Avinash alias Billu S/o Shri Bonre Lal, (6) Ramzan S/o Safeda Meo, and (7) Kallu S/o Safeda Meo, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 12th December, 2002, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror, District Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 22/2002 (26/2001), therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants as under:------------------------------------------------------------------------------Accused- Under Sentence ofAppellants Sections Imprisonment------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jamil, Ramzan, 395, IPC Each accused to undergo 10 Kallu and Siddiq years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,...
Harswaroop and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3419
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This appeal on behalf of three appellants, namely, (1) Har-swaroop S/o Shri Sagar, (2) Sagar S/o Shri Chirmoli and (3) Kela W/o Shri Sagar, is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deeg (Bharatpur) in Sessions Case No. 32/1999, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 304B, IPC, to undergo 7 years simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a written- report dated 16.12.1998 (Exhibit P-9) was lodged at the Police Station Kotwali - Deeg by PW-8 Motiram about the death of his daughter Imarti Devi at her matrimonial house under abnormal circumstances. It was mentioned in the report that his daughter Imarti Devi married with Harswaroop in June, 1995, he gave sufficient dowry in her marriage, but her husband Harswaroop, mother-in-law Kela and father-in-law Sagar were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage, therefore, they used to haras...
Goma Ram Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN39
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the correctness, validity and propriety of the award dt. 24.07.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Industrial Dispute No. 244/2001. The appropriate government under its notification dt. 24.05.2001 referred an industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Jodhpur for its adjudication in the terms as to 'whether the termination of workman Sh. Goma Ram S/o Motiram w.e.f. 22.05.1994 by an oral order of Assistant Engineer, Sub-division-IV, City Division -II, Public Health & Engineering Department, Jodhpur was legal and justified? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?' The Labour Court on basis of the vouchers pertaining to the month of May and June 1994 held that in the months aforesaid the workman was not in employment, and therefore, he did not complete the continuous service in a calendar year as defined under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The contention of learned Counsel for th...
Madho Singh Bhati Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN330
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order Annex.8 dt. 22.03.2007 placing the petitioner under suspension and also the proceedings initiated against him.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was working on the post of 'Parcha Vitrak' cum Surveyor cum 'Raksha-Prahari'. The respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice dt. 03.01.2007 Annex.1 calling explanation from the petitioner within three days stating in the show cause notice Annex.1 that an inspection was made by the Authority issuing the notice on 03.01.2007 at 10:15 AM and at the relevant time, the petitioner was not found present in the Office. A reply to the show cause notice was filed by the petitioner on 04.01.2007 (Annx.2) and it was explained therein that at the relevant time, the petitioner was not absent from duty but was present...
Sepoy Balkaran Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN131
Govind Mathur, J.1. On being enrolled as Soldier (GD) with Indian Army on 17.03.2002 the petitioner was sent for requisite training and while undergoing the same on medical re-examination he was found suffering 'Latent squint'. The petitioner was struck off from the strength of basic training regiment from 29.12.2002 being invalided out of service by medical board, hence this petition for writ is preferred.2. At the threshold, learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined claim of the petitioner to the extent it relates to grant of disability pension as per the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 1961'). While claiming so, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that right to get pension to the petitioner accrued by Regulation 173-A and not as per Regulation 173 of the Regulations of 1961, therefore, there was no need to determine as to whether disability occurred was aggravated during military service or attributed to military service...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »