Rajasthan Court January 2008 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.
Lalu Ram Vs. Mohd. Umar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN303
Manak Mohta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 06.07.2007 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MACT Case No. 145/2005 rejecting the prayer to pass an interim award on an application filed by the claimant under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant-Lalu Ram on 31.10.2003 at 6.30 p.m. along with one Kuka Ram were going on Suzuki motor-cycle No. RJ-27-12M-5080 from Udaipur to their village. The motor-cycle was being driven by Kuka Ram and he was sitting behind. It was alleged that in the way, a tempo bearing No. RJ-27P-4364 driven by its driver-Mohd. Umar in a rash and negligent manner after overtaking them, suddenly and carelessly took right turn without giving any indication, as a result of which, the said tempo hit the motor-cycle and the claimant fell down and sustained injuries on his left shoulder and was taken to hospital where after examination, injury repor...
Chandra Pal Singh Vs. Smt. Nani Bai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN98
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court dt. 27.05.2004 whereby the learned trial Court refused to take into evidence the agreement to sell executed between the parties on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- on the ground that the same was not properly stamped and registered as per the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is clear exclusion under Proviso to Section 49 of Indian Registration Act with regard to agreement to sell where the suit for specific performance are tried. The said provision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.-- No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall--(a) affect ...
Sunita and anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN400
Manak Mohta, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the judgment and Award dt. 17.04.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh District Churu in MACT Case No. 88/2005, whereby the learned Court-below has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- in their favour.2. Brief facts of this appeal are that on 01.10.2005 at about 10.00 PM deceased Bhalaram @ Ram Prasad and Mohar Singh started on Tractor No. RJ-10-R/4792 from Rajgarh for Nagal badi. Mohar Singh was driving the Tractor and deceased Bhalaram was sitting on the Tractor. When they reached near Lutana Barrier at Hissar Road, then, one Bus bearing No. RJ- 18P/1160 driven by its driver Sant Ram came behind them and dashed the said Tractor, on account of which, the trolley of the Tractor turtled, Bhalaram fell down and sustained injuries during accident, whereby, Bhalaram @ Ram Prasad died on the spot and Mohar Singh sustained inj...
Sushil Kumar Rawal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1825
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. The matter has come on the application moved by the intervener seeking vacation of the interim order passed by this Court on 30.9.2005.2. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the intervener that petitioner has made a false declaration in the application regarding his caste and thereby indulged himself in the malpractice to contest the election of the panchayats. It was submitted that petitioner is not belonging to the S.C. Category for which the post was reserved hence, the election of the petitioner cannot be allowed to stand therefore the necessary action taken by the government, should not be withheld and, therefore, prayed for vacation of the interim order. During the course of argument of the application, both the counsel for the parties agreed that matter may be decided finally as argument of the stay application as well as of the writ petition are one and the same. With the agreement of the parties, the matter was taken up for hearing.3. Learned counsel fo...
S.M. Telesys Ltd. Vs. Esquire Electronics Inc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2008
Reported in: [2008]88SCL43(Raj)
ORDERAjay Rastogi, J.1. Instant appeal has been filed under Section 10F of Companies Act, 1956 assailing interim order passed by Company Law Board dated 4-6-2007.2. Company petition has been filed by respondent herein under Sections 397 and 398 read with Sections 402 and 403 of Companies Act with regard to operation and mismanagement. Pending petition, company application was filed in which the Board after taking into consideration the material passed interim order on 4-6-2007. It has also come on record that in separate Company Application No. 177/07 further order was passed by Board on 11-5-2007 which was independently assailed by present appellant by Company Appeal No. 5/07 and which has been decided by this court on 27-7-2007 and the appellant was granted liberty to raise objections including jurisdiction of Company Law Board in passing interim order before the Board as such.3. Respondents have filed reply to the present appeal and it has been brought to the notice of this court th...
Purshottam and ors. Vs. NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj154
ORDER1. By this appeal the appellant seeks to challenge order of the learned Single Judge dt. 5.1.2006, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the present private respondents No. 1 to 5, and thereby set aside the judgment of the learned Board of Revenue dated 6.1.1990.2. The brief facts of the case are, that the appellants filed a suit in the Court of S.D.M. Vallabh Nagar for declaration of Khatedari rights, alleging interalia, that the land in question belonged to the deceased Kana, being the father of the defendants No. 2 to 6, and husband of defendant No. 1, which was sold by him to the plaintiff on Jeth Sudi 13, Samvat 2009, and by executing the sale deed the possession was delivered. Then, Lalu and Manga also sold their share to the plaintiffs' father on Phagan Sud 7, Samvat 2009, by executing sale deed, and delivered possession. Then, the fourth brother also sold land to the plaintiffs some 4-5 years before commencement of the Tenancy Act, and thus the land...
Ram Karan Choudhary Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj79; RLW2008(2)Raj1406
N.P. Gupta, J.1. These three appeals though arise out of different orders, having passed by different benches, relating to different areas, and having different facts, still ultimately involve the common question, and therefore, they are being decided by this common order.2. Appeal No. 912/2000 has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2734/2000, dismissing the writ petition, on the ground, that entire rights and liabilities flow from a contract between the petitioner and the Committee, and for enforcement of contractual relations, writ petition is not maintainable. It was also found, that it involves disputed questions of fact, and that, according to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal, the Constitutional Courts should insist upon the party to avail alternative remedy, instead of invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court, and then generous, general and casual approa...
R.G. Ispat Ltd. Vs. Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR108]; (2008)IIILLJ388Raj; RLW2008(2)Raj1558
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant is a limited Company having its Officer in Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur. The State of Rajasthan acting as appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') referred the following dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act for adiudiction before the Labour Court, Jaipur:vkj- th- bLikr es fu;ksftr Jfedx.k ftudh lwph layXu gS ftudk izfrfu/kRo Leky Ldsy dkj[kkuk yscj ;wfu;u 3] gFkjksbZ] vtesj jksM+] t;iqj }kjk fd;k x;k gS O;oLFkkid] vkj- th- bLikr fy- jksM+ ua- 9 fo'odekZ vkS|ksfxd {ks=] t;iqj }kjk dke ij ysus ls bUdkj djuk] tcfd vU; Jfedksa dks dke ij ys x;k] dgka rd mfpr ,oa U;k; laxr gS rFkk Jfedx.k fdl jkgr ds vf/kdkjh gSA list of 67 workmen, was appended with the reference.2. The workmen through General Secretary, Small Scale Karkhana Labour Union (for short Union) filed their statement of claim, alleging that there were 135 permanent workmen, employed in the...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Shamim and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2785; AIR2008Raj99
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The questions arise for our consideration are:(i) Whether the Railway Tribunal has the power to grant interest under the Railways Act 1989 or under the Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 or not?(ii) Whether in the absence of any explicit provision empowering the Railway Tribunal with the power to grant interest, can such a power be read implicitly into the Act or the Rules or not?(iii) Whether in case of absence of any express provision empowering the Tribunal of granting interest, whether an implied bar can be read into the Act or the Rules prohibiting the Railway Tribunal granting interest or not?(iv) In case the Railway Tribunal does have the power to grant interest, should the interest be granted from the date of filing of the claim petition, or the interest should be calculated from the date of the passing of the award?2. The above questions arise in this way:In Smt. Jeeto Devi v. Union of India (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1...
Lokesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1418
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By this joint writ petition, the petitioners are seeking relief for the grant of pay-scale of Rs. 470-830 under the Pay Scales Rules of 1976 and promotion from the date the petitioners completed one year of service in the work-charged cadre or in the regular cadre on the post of Assistant Driller.2. According to facts of the case set out in the writ petition, vide order Annex.-1 dated 3.6.1980, petitioners No. 1 to 15 were appointed to the post of Assistant Driller in the pay-scale of Rs.295-500 on work-charge basis. Vide order dated 17.11.1980, pay-scale of Rs. 385-650 was allowed to them with effect from 1.11.1980. By another order dated 6.1.1982, all the petitioners in the writ petition, were employed as Assistant Drillers in the pay-scale of Rs. 385-650 and thus all the petitioners happened to be on the regular cadre of Assistant Driller with effect from 6.1.1982. It is submitted in the writ petition that this appointment was made in accordance with the Raj...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »