Rajasthan Court February 2009 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.
Mahesh Chand (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Manohari Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1979
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25th August, 1988 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 7/81 (58/78), whereby suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract has been dismissed.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the appeal are that on 6th October, 1978, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement in respect of disputed property i.e. double storied shop. It was pleaded in the suit that on 16th January, 1978, the defendants agreed to sell the disputed property situated in village Kathoomar, Tehsil Laxmangarh to plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Rs. 5,000/- were paid as an advance. An agreement was executed in this regard. The remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property ev...
Arun Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2577
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on similar set of facts the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. There is no dispute that father of both the appellants Shri Babu Lal Saxena died while in service on 20.1.1976. The eldest brother of both the appellants Shri Ashok Kumar Saxena had been given compassionate appointment under the relevant Rules as existed at the relevant time on 7.2.1976. As it transpires, after appointment of Shri Ashok Kumar Saxena on compassionate grounds on 7.2.1976, the appellant-Arun Kumar Saxena also submitted an application for compassionate appointment and accordingly he was also given compassionate appointment on the post of Malaria Surveillance Worker on 1.5.1976; Subsequently, the younger brother Rajesh Kumar Saxena, appellant in one of the appeals, also sought compassionate appointment on the post of LDC on an application filed by his mother. Initi...
Ganpat and ors. Vs. Mangla Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3041
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 06.01.1975 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ('the RAA' for short), and two orders passed by the Board of Revenue, namely order dated 20.04.1979 and 31.08.1979.2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners against Mangla Ram and others in the year 1981. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, Mangla Ram, the respondent No. l, expired in 1983. Despite his death, no application was moved by the petitioners for bringing his legal representatives on record till 07.09.1988. The respondents raised an objection that the application for bringing the legal representatives was inordinately delayed by five years. And yet, no application for condonation of delay had been filed along with the application for bringing the legal representatives on record. Therefore, on 16.05.1996 i.e. after eight years of having filed the application for brining the legal representatives on record, an application for condonation...
Gura Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj2910
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The two appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Hanumangarh dt. 7.5.2003 convicting them for the offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor, and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment, so also convicting each of the accused appellant for the offence under Section 201 IPC simplicitor, and sentencing each of them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment, and directing both the sentences to run concurrently.2. Necessary facts are that on 27.5.2000 Sukhcharan Singh lodged an oral report at the police station Pilibanga, to the effect that for the last 25-30 years one Mal Singh Jat Sikh was living in the village, whose house is situate on the outskirts, and Mahendra Kaur was his wife, and the...
Lalita (Ku.) Vs. Mahendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN61
Guman Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal has been preferred by the injured Ku.Lalita for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur-cum-Rajasthan Coop. Tribunal, Jaipur vide judgment dt. 10.05.1999 whereby a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded to the injured appellant by way of compensation for 3% disability due to fracture of right Tibia and Fabula in the accident.3. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded to the injured-appellant is on lower side i.e. sum of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded by way of compensation for the disability caused while the appellant should have been awarded at least Rs. 25,000/- on account of disability caused as the minimum amount to be paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is Rs. 25,000/- in case of disability which came into force on 14.11.1994.5. Per contra, learned Counsel for...
Dashrath Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1416
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner Dashrath Singh against the order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Beawar, whereby he has imposed a condition of furnishing local sureties, while enlarging the accused-petitioner on bail. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 11/99, registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ajmer for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.2. The father of the petitioner, namely Hari Singh, who is present in person submits that he is a poor man and is a resident of district Tonk. He is unable to furnish local sureties in compliance of the order impugned, passed by the court below.3. I have taken into consideration the facts of the case and also perused the order impugned passed by the learned court below. It is a settled principle of law that a condition of furnishing local sureties should not be imposed except in extraordinary circumstances. In t...
Abdul Mateen and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2376; RLW2010(1)Raj449
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These four criminal appeals, on behalf of accused-appellants, and one criminal leave to appeal, on behalf of the State, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2000, passed by the Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Mansingh Death case), Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 8/98, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The trial Court, vide its impugned order, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:Accused Under ImprisonmentSection1. Abdul Mateen 14 of the To undergo 5 years RIForeigners and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;Act, 1946 in default, to furtherundergo 1 years' SI4 of PDPP To undergo 10 years RIAct and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI456 IPC To undergo 3 years RIand a fine of Rs. 3,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 6 months' SI307/120B To undergo 10 years' RIIPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI435/120B To undergo 7 years RIIPC...
Raj Laxmi Mahila Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. (the) Vs. State of Rajast ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1398
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction for expeditious Investigation in FIR No. 192/2008, registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur for the offence under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 193 and 120-B IPC.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the investigation, in this case, is not being proceeded promptly and in a proper manner. Further, he has submitted that request had been made to the Investigation Officer for early result of the investigation, but the same was not done. The Investigation Officer, according to him, is not submitting the result of investigation.3. After having considered the facts and circumstances and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has alternative remedy before the higher authorities of the Police Department and also before the Halka Magistrate. In this view, I am supported by the judg...
Dr. Shrigopal Baheti Vs. Vasudev Devnani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj65
ORDERDalip Singh, J.1. This election petition filed by the petitioner having been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to this Court has come up today.2. A report was sought from the Registry as to whether the petition is accompanied by extra copies of the petition at the time of its presentation as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. A report has been given by the Registry today to the effect that the process fee, notices and extra sets have not been filed.3. Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 reads as under:(3) Every, election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.(Emphasis supplied.)4. The provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are mandatory in nature and requ...
Jamna Lal Vs. Prajendra Nahar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1941; 2009(1)WLN160
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been filed by the defendant - tenant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction by the first appellate Court while allowing the plaintiffs appeal No. 57/2001 on 8.2.2006 reversing the judgment of the trial Court dated 13.2.2001 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff on the ground of arrears, bonafide necessity of the plaintiff -landlord and also denial of title.2. The first appellate court in the impugned judgment dated 8.2.2006 has clearly found that the suit premises, namley, 60 x 40 ft. plot of land situated at plot No. 8, Boharwadi, Udaipur was given by way of a Will executed by father Sh. Daulat Singh, erstwhile landlord in favour of the present plaintiffs his two sons Prajendra Nahar and Azad Nahar and the said Will was duly proved by one of the attesting witnesses, Mr. O.P. Khabia, P.W.2 the son-in-law of testator Daulat Singh before the learned trial C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »