Rajasthan Court February 2009 Judgments
Anjuman A. Burhani Vs. Daudi Bohra Jamaet, Registered Society and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj150
ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendant Anjuman A Burhani (Shiya Daudi Bohra Jamaet) against the plaintiff Daudi Bohra Jamaet, being aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court dated 12-4-2007 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. filed by the defendant-petitioner seeking dismissal of the suit at threshold as barred by law.2. The defendant--petitioner contended before the Court below that Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 barred the present suit of injunction filed by the plaintiff also and, therefore, the learned Court below has erred in rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. and being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 clearly bars jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to...
Tag this Judgment!Minakshi Sharma (Smt.) Vs. Hitendra Kumar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3128
Raghuvendra S. Ratohre, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner challenging the order dated 09.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 11.08.2000 passed by the learned Magistrate. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant-petitioner has been rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation and the non-petitioner has been acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has prayed that the order dated 09.10.2000 passed by the learned Revisional court may be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 11.08.2000 be affirmed. Further, it be held that the complaint was within the period of limitation.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the learned trial Court for the offence under S...
Tag this Judgment!Suptd. Engineer P.W.D. and ors. Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3117
ORDERPrem Shanker Asopa, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By this writ petition the petitioners-State has challenged the award of the labour Court dated 27.6.1994 (Annexure/6) whereby the respondent No. 2 who was working in Femine Relief works has been reinstated whose termination has been declared illegal and void on account of non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further he has been granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service with all back wages.3. The fact relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy is that the respondent-workman was appointed on 1.10.1987 and has worked upto 30.11.1988 in the Femine Relief Works.4. The submission of counsel for the petitioners-State is that the Femine Relief Works is exempted from the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on account of framing of the enactment of the State called as the Rajasthan Femine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964 (for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Seth Gokuldas Pradeep Kumar Rathi and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR201(Raj)
1. This reference has been made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, referring the following question for answer in R. A. Nos. 343 and 344/JP/88 (arising out of W. T. A. Nos. 28 and 29/JP/88) pertaining to the assessment year 1982-83:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of shares held by the assessee in M/s. Krishna Mills Ltd., Beawar, is to be arrived at on yield basis as against the value under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules ?2. The assessee held shares in Krishna Mills and claimed that the shares should be valued as per yield method. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and valued the same as per Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. An appeal was preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (for short 'the AAC'), who set aside the order of the Wealth-tax Officer and allowed the claim of the assessee. Appeal was preferred by the Revenue ...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Panna Dhariwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2775
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No. 4 to issue the eligibility certificate to the petitioner of Class-XI and further the petitioner be allowed to appear in Class-XII examination of ISC-2009.2. It is also pertinent to mention here that by virtue of interim orders of this Court, the petitioner has been allowed to appear in Class-XI and presently, she is continuing her studies in Class-XII and further on 16.2.2009, an application to allow the petitioner to appear in the practical examination of Class-XII was filed along with prayer to issue the eligibility certificate for appearing in the final examination of Class-XII of ISC-2009. On the last but two working days i.e. 20.2.2009 final arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved.3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently student of Mayo College Girls' School, Ajmer which is affiliated with t...
Tag this Judgment!Jasoda (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Mahendra Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2649
N.P. Gupta, J.1. These two appeals have been filed against the common award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dt. 17.3.1997.2. The Appeal No. 686 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, while Appeal No. 738 has been filed by the insurer, assailing the liability of the insurer.3. The necessary facts of the case are, that on 6.8.1987, in the noon, the deceased Pannalal was travelling on his moped, on the road leading from Jodhpur to Mandore, when he reached near Krishi Mandi, he indicated to be intending to turn towards Krishi Mandi, and thereafter in the process of his crossing the road, the delinquent truck No. 7484 came, being driven rashly and negligently, and hit the deceased, who died on the spot. The truck was alleged to have been insured with the appellant in Appeal No. 738, hereafter referred to as the insurer.4. The insurer contested the claim by filing a written statement, pleading interalia, that the insurer learnt about accident ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Bhati Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj137
ORDERSangeet Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 14-12-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.) No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 468/04, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-defendant under Order XI, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, read with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Act' hereinafter), stands rejected.2. The respondent-plaintiff preferred a suit for possession of the disputed property inter alia against the petitioner-defendant on the strength of a Will dated 21-10-1980 executed by Srnt. Kisturi Devi in his favour. The petitioner-defendant filed the written statement denying the averments, made in the plaint and also filed a counter claim seeking declaration to the effect that the said Will dated 21-10-1980 is concocted, false and null and void. That apart, petitioner-defendant has taken the stand that the plaintiffs father late Shri Ummed Singh had executed his last Will on 25-7-1994, t...
Tag this Judgment!Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3080
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated August 29, 2008 of the Judge, Family Court No. l, Jaipur whereby the compromise petition submitted between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 was attested and Rs. 3,000/- per month was allowed as maintenance and cost of litigation Rs. 1,000/- was also granted.2. On reading the petition filed by the petitioner and the orders passed by the Judge, Family Court, it appears that the parties i.e. petitioner and the respondent, who are husband and wife compromised the matter and their compromise was attested by he Judge Family Court, Jaipur on August 29, 2008. On the basis of the compromise the application filed by the respondent was also decided on August 29, 2008 and she was allowed maintenance in the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month as per the compromise and further Rs. 1,000/-as cost of litigation. The application of the parties under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Rakhecha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN55
Govind Mathur, J.1. On availability of vacancies of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Water Shed Development Project with Panchayat Samiti, Raipur, the petitioner submitted an application and he was called for to face interview for appointment on the post aforesaid on 25.07.1995. On being selected as such, the petitioner submitted a Joining Report on 01.08.1995. As per the petitioner, he was required to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600, however, the same was not done and an instruction was given to the petitioner to execute a service contract for appointment. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ was filed. 2. By an interim order dt. 11.04.1997, certified copy of which is shown to me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and is also placed on record due to non-availability of the record of stay application, the respondents were directed to allow appointment to the petitioner subject to the condition that he executes a service agreement. It is stated by learned Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Raj28
Dalip Singh, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the Indian Oil Corporation against the judgment of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal dated 05.08.1992 in Claim Case No. OA-1-165 of 1990 and OA-1-166 of 1990 whereby the claim filed by the Indian Oil Corporation against the Union of India through General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Bombay has been dismissed.2. The facts, in brief which are common in both the cases, are that the Indian Oil Corporation filed a claim for compensation for the alleged shortage in the quantity of its product which was transported through the Railways from the siding of the Indian Oil Corporation i.e. from Sabarmati to Udaipur City in Appeal No. 663/1992 vide RR No. 528089 dated 21.10.1987 from Khari Rohar Road to Bais Godam, Jaipur in Appeal No. 668/1992 vide RR No. 863885 dated 19.04.1988.3. Both these appeals have been taken up together because the claim has been filed on account of the fact that the tank wagon which was received at the de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »