Rajasthan Court November 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.
Bhagwan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1564; 2009(1)WLN83
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These three writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are heard and decided together by taking the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5845/2005 as leading case.2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed temporarily on the post of Teacher Grade-III by order Annexure-P/1 dated 29th September, 1973. However, subsequently, the services of the petitioner came to be confirmed by order Annexure-P/2 dated, 29th November, 1975 w.e.f. 1.11.1975. While in service, the petitioner for visiting abroad as a tourist and in order to meet his brother filed an application for such permission and also sought No Objection Certificate from the respondent Department. For grant of NOC to the petitioner, his application was forwarded vide communication dated 2nd July, 1982 Annexur...
Babulal Rangrej Vs. Shekhawati GramIn Bank Head Office Sikar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3292
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents assigning him seniority below those who were lower in merit list than him. Petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Manager pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents. In the merit list, which was prepared in such recruitment process, name of the petitioner found place at Sr. No. 30. Appointment order of the petitioner was issued or 20,3.1978 (Ann. 1), Appointment order required the petitioner to submit his acceptance within seven days. Petitioner accepted the appointment but requested the authorities to extend his joining period till 20.11.1978. Representation submitted by the petitioner in this respect on 21.3.1978 was accepted by the respondents vide their order dated 28.3.1978 advising him to report for duty on his cost within seven days. Petitioner thereupon sent a specific application to the respondents on 3.4.1978 in which reasons were given for h...
Prithvi Raj Vs. Smt. Kamlesh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1119
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By filing instant criminal revision the petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kota in case No. 1026/2002, by which it allowed the application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000/- p.m. to the respondent.2. Brief fact of the case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court stating therein that she entered into Nata Marriage on 27.6.1998 with the petitioner and lived with him for two years. Thereafter, she was deserted and since then she has been living with her parent in the parental house and she demanded payment of Rs. 1000/- p.m. towards maintenance.3. The petitioner filed a detailed reply controverted the facts mentioned by the respondent.4. The respondent in support of her case produced as many as three witnesses and petitioner also produced three witnesses.5. The Family Court after hearing passed the Judgment dated 5...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Kumar Dinesh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Raj)78
ORDER1. Both these appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the common order of the learned Tribunal dt. 20th July, 2007, and therefore, are being decided by this common order.2. It is contended that the learned Tribunal was in error in holding that interest under Section 220(2) can be awarded only from the due date of demand notice issued for the reframed assessment order on the amount finally determined as taxable, and not from the due date of the original assessment order.3. The necessary facts in brief are, that the AO made a block assessment vide order dt. 28th May, 1998, that assessment was set aside by the Tribunal, and the matter was sent back to the AO to examine the matter afresh. Thereafter, the assessment was again made for the same income. Again that order was set aside by the Tribunal vide order dt. 31st March, 2005, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO with certain directions. Thereafter, the AO passed a fresh assessment order determining the total und...
Badri Ram and ors. Vs. Narayan Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj48
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 23-7-2008 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur by which the learned trial Court dismissed the appellants' application filed under Order 9. Rule 13, C.P.C. as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree dated 21-8-2007.3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellants with title allegation that in the suit shop situated in commercial area i.e. Stadium Shopping Centre, Kalpatru Cinema Road, Jodhpur, the defendants-appellants were running their shop M/s. Mahadev Travels as licencee of the plaintiff-respondent because of the reason that they had well acquaintance with the plaintiff. It is submitted in the plaint that the defendants who are running commercial enterprises in the shop in dispute would hand over th...
Ayodha Bai (Mst.) and ors. Vs. Murli Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1065
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the appeal and after considering their submissions, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed.2. The appeal is admitted. The contesting respondent is represented by their counsel.3. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.4. The legal representative of deceased Gopal who died in motor accident which took place on 4th August, 1997, have preferred this appeal for the enhancement of the compensation amount under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aklera, vide its impugned award dated 5th December, 2002 allowed total compensation of Rs. 1,74,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 22.9.1997 till the date of re...
Durga Lal and ors. Vs. Dhan Raj Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1070
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Admit.3. The respondents are represented by their counsel. With the consent of both the parties, he appeal is heard finally.4. The legal representatives of deceased Gulab Bai have preferred this appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the impugned award dated 4.3.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,66,800/- in their favour.5. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 1050/- per month whereas it should have been assessed at least Rs. 15,000/- per year as notional income. So far as multiplier applied in the present case is concerned, he contended that she was 25 years of age, therefore, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied in ...
Govind Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj61
ORDERPrem Shanker Asopa, J.1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 2 has also been served but no one appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. However, for respondent No. 1 Mr. R.S. Rathore, Additional Government Counsel is present.2. With the consent of the parties, the case was heard finally.3. This writ petition is arising out of the interim order dated 13-8-2008 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur whereby the application for interim compensation has been rejected on the ground that there is no prima facie evidence on record that death of the 4 years' child caused on account of drowning in the pond.4. The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that the pond was not surrounded by wall by the Municipality and the deceased was playing nearby the pond and further being of the age of 4 years was not knowing the consequences. The State Government in such cases should award ex-gratia amount but here in the instant cas...
Manju Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Khetaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1067
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned Award dated 29.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 & Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Accident Claim No. 174/2005. The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 11,77,664/- in favour of the appellants, with interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e. 16th July, 2004, as under:1. Rs. 11,11,664/- For loss of income2. Rs. 20,000/- For loss of consortium3. Rs. 20,000/- For Loss of love and affection to the applicant'sNo. 2 and 34. Rs. 20,000/- For loss of love and affection to parents5. Rs. 5,000/- For funeral expenses6. Rs. 1,000/- For transportation etc.2. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned Award.3. The only grievance of the learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an ille...
Mamta (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Lalit Kumar Panwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1089
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Smt. Mamta and Rakshit challenging the order dated May 28, 2008 passed by Judge Family Court Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 132 of 2002 whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner No. 1 was dismissed and the application of the petitioner No. 2 was partly allowed.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioners filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on June 8, 1998 at Ajmer according to the Hindu Customs. With the cohabitation of the respondent she gave birth to a male child (petitioner No. 2). After one month of marriage the respondent and his family members started to commit cruelty and demanded dower of Rs. 50 thousands as cash and a Suzuki Motor cycle. When the demand was not fulfilled, they started to bear her and told that she does not deserve to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »