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.
Gyaneshwar Bhati Vs. Balu Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1426
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendant Gyaneshwar Bhati being aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court dated 12.6.2008 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. holding that suit No. 39/2008 filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable and deserved to be tried.2. The other defendants Sh. Ghanchi Mahasabha represented by its President Shyam Lal and Secretary Poonam Chand S/O Udal Ram also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and both the applications came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No. 4 Gyaneshwar has filed the present revision petition.3. Mr. S.C. Maloo, learned Counsel for the petitioner - defendant No. 4 submitted that by a resolution dtd.l3.4.2008, the General body of Sh. Ghanchi Mahasabha had given on rent the first floor of the premises situated at 5th Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur belongi...
Raja Ram Vs. Shekhar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1935
ORDERAs a result suit No. 216/71 filed by Achaleshwar is decreed with costs and suit No. 290/71 filed by Rajiya is dismissed with costs. The Civil Misc. application No. 13/72 is allowed and non-applicant Rajiya is held guilty under Order 39 Rule 2(3) C.P.C. for violation and breach of the injunction of Court granted on 10.7.71 and is taken in custody to undergo two months civil prison. Rajiya is further directed to restore the possession of the disputed plot to Achaleshwar.Sd/-Munsif, Bhinmal7. It may also be pertinent to mention here that just one day prior to pronouncement of the said judgment on 22.10.1974, the plaintiff Achleshwar had filed an application seeking to add the relief of possession on which order was passed by the learned trial Court on the said application itself rejecting the said application. Be that as it may, all these aspects appear to have been considered by this Court while rejecting the revision petition No. 85/1996 on 5.11.2003 - Raja Ram v. Shekhar which was...
Mahendra and ors. Vs. Rawata Ram (by L.Rs.) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj98
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. The plaintiffs legal representatives/applicants submitted an application under Order 22, Rule 3, CPC on account of death of sole plaintiff which occurred on 10-12-2004 but the 'application was submitted after more than 2 1/2 years on 29-3-2007. Said application was allowed by the trial Court by treating that application under Order 22, Rule 9, CPC which is apparent from the first paragraph of the impugned order dated 12-9-2008 and thereafter, the above legal representatives were taken on record.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the plaintiffs legal representative had knowledge of the suit and they did not move any application under Order 22, Rule 9, CPC as well as the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the trial Court's order dated 12-9-2008 is illegal and deserves to be set aside.4. I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners and p...
Prema (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj303
Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to sanction the family pension to the petitioner in accordance with the proviso to Rule 268B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 release the amount of GPF, State Insurance, amount of Police Welfare funds and other consequential benefits which petitioner is entitled to.2. Facts in brief as unfolded in the writ petition are that the petitioner's husband was appointed in the service of respondents as a Constable vide order dt. August, 1977 in 5th BN, R.A.C. and after successfully completing his training, he was posted at 8th BN, RAC (IR) in the State of Tripura. While serving the respondents, husband of the petitioner disappeared on 06.11.1985. Department sent various notices to the husband of the petitioner at his home address to which, petitioner, sent reply on behalf of her husband on 05.06.1986. Ultimately, the respondents vide order dt. 07.06.1988 dismissed husband of the petitioner ...
Lekhraj Sharma Vs. Suraj Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN89
Guman Singh, J.1. With the consent of both the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally at the admission stage and is being disposed of at this stage.2. This appeal has been preferred by the dependents of deceased Savitri wife of Lekh Raj for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 3, Jaipur vide judgment dt. 01.08.2005 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- was awarded by way of compensation on account of death caused in the accident of Smt. Savitri.3. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only.4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation as the Tribunal has only assessed income of Rs. 25,000/- per annum which is on lower side. It is further submitted that for loss of consortium, only Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded which should have been at least Rs. 15,000/-.5. Per contra, learned Counsel fo...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tej Paras Associates and Exports P ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN14
Manak Mohta, J.1. Heard2. The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Limited against the judgment and order dt. 15.07.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur by which he has dismissed the application filed under Section 34 of the Act as being held time-barred while rejecting the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.3. The brief facts of case as revealed from the record are that respondent-firm M/s. Tej Paras Associated and Exports (P) Limited was engaged in the business of cold storage having its godown at E-92 (B) Mandore Industrial Area, Jodhpur. The respondent-firm was having dealings with Vijaya Bank, which insisted to take fire insurance policy. The respondent-firm obtained a fire insurance policy vide policy No. 2000/660 for the period 01.12.1999 to 30.11.2000. It is further revealed from record th...
Kali Charan Vs. Smt. Puneet Gautam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN553
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.1. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No. 1-Smt. Puneet Gautam and father of respondent No. 2-Master Umang @ Ishu, against whom a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance was filed by the respondents. 2. In the said petition, an interim order dt. 03.05.2005 was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur in favour of the respondents to give interim maintenance allowance @ Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent No. 1-wife and Rs. 1000/- to the respondent No. 2 her minor son. Against the said order, this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the same. 3. By this Court on 01.06.2005 after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner a modification was made in the order by reducing the amount of Rs. 500/- and the order of the lower Court granting maintenance to the respondent No. 1 was stayed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders of the tri...
Trilok Chand Vs. National Insurance Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2572
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 9th April, 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhalawar in Civil Suit No. 5/89, whereby the learned trial court has dismissed his suit for compensation of a sum of Rs. 42,100/-.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for compensation of a sum of Rs. 42,100/- in the trial court against the respondent, wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff got his shop and goods insured with the respondent by taking insurance policy on 11th February, 1988 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. During the intervening night of 25th and 26th February, 1988, at about 3.00 PM, fire took place in the shop of the plaintiff, the information of which was given by the police at plaintiff's house in the night and thereupon the fire was extinguished with the help of neighbours in about four hours. The FIR was lodged with the police and information was gi...
Girdhari Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1305
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of reversion dated 30.5.2007 (Anx.18) whereby penalty of reversion for a period of three years has been imposed against which the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 27.2.2008 (Anx.21).3. The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid punishment are that while the petitioner was working as Inspector in Rajasthan Police in Bharatpur District,he was served with the charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 4.1.2005 (Anx.13) levelling three charges i.e. (i) keeping the wife of Ram Kishan, Head Constable with him as wife since 1999; (ii) advancing loan on higher rate to Ram Kishan, Head Constable and (iii) compelling Ram Kishan, Head Constable to file an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce. The aforesaid charge sheet is said to have been issued on the...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Hiro J. Nagpal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Raj)414; [2009]181TAXMAN168(Raj)
1. These references have been made at the instance of the Revenue in six assessment cases for the years ranging from 1973-74 to 1978-79. The factual and legal issues involved are identical, the same are being decided by this common order.2. The assessee-respondent filed WT returns. A notice under Section 17 of the WT Act was issued and served upon the assessee for the valuation of the Hotel Nagpal in question, against book value. The property known as Nagpal Hotel was referred to the Valuation Cell of the Department and the Valuation Officer, vide his order dt. 20th Sept., 1977, valued the interest of the assessee in the property. The WTO issued demand under Section 16(3)/17 of the WT Act vide his order dt. 26th March, 1980. The order of the WTO was challenged by way of appeal before the AAC of wealth-tax who upheld the order of the WTO. Against the appellate order, further appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted the benefit of exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »