Rajasthan Court March 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.
Banwari Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj420
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Anoop Dhand, Advocate on behalf of the applicants in FIR No. 201/2007 of police station Reenus, District Sikar, in the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 452, 143, 148, 149 of IPC.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record.3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition.4. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is found that one F.I.R. No. 201/2007 was registered in Police Station Reengus against the petitioners in the offences under Sections 143, 148, 149, 452, 323 and 354 of IPC. Police granted bail to the petitioners under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. treating all the offences to be bailable. Thereafter, S.H.O., Police Station Reengus submitted an application through A.P.P. und...
Shri Kanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN473
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of his removal dt. 26.02.1992. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable in G.R.P., Ajmer in 1966. He was promoted on the post of Head Constable in year 1970. He was transferred from G.R.P., Ajmer to Police Lines District Jaipur in March, 1983. On 04.08.1988 he was appointed as Incharge Armed Guard in Income Tax Department. He was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 some time in October, 1988. Charge against petitioner was that while he was posted with Police Line, Jaipur and was appointed as Incharge Armed Guard in Income Tax Department, he in drunken position went to Circle near Railway Station, Jaipur on a rickshaw with one Rajendra Singh, who was under the influence of liquor. The rickshaw was parked on the main road which led to obstruction in traffic. Shri Kailash Chand Meena, C...
C.T.O. (Ae) Vs. Marudhara Motors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1430; (2009)12VatReporter17
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These revision petitions have been filed by the Revenue under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) being aggrieved by the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 18/6/2067, whereby, the Tax Board decided a batch of sue appeals filed by the Assessee and another batch of six appeals filed by the Revenue. These cross appeals arose out of the order of first appellate authority - Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur dated 22/7/2006, whereby, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the levy of tax upon the assessee, whereas, set aside the levy of interest and penalty imposed by the assessing authority under Section 65 of the Act. So far as levy of tax was upheld, the assessee was aggrieved and, therefore, it preferred six appeals for six different assessment years namely A.Y.2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. As far as levy of interest and penalty is concerned, since first appellat...
Ummed Raj Vs. Babulal Soni and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2483
Govind Mathur, J.1. To question validity, correctness and propriety of the order dated 22.3.2005, passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 104/04, i.e. said to have been filed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, this petition for writ is preferred.2. In brief, facts of the case are that the present petitioner is a tenant in the premises owned by the respondent plaintiff, who preferred a suit for eviction and arrears of rent and damages against the petitioner defendant before Additional District Judge, Abu Road on the ground of reasonable bonafide necessity and substantial damage to the premises let out. On 17.2.2005 the petitioner defendant preferred three different applications. One under Order XI Rules 15 and 18 read with 151 Code of Civil Procedure with the statement that in the plaint a reference regarding a sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was made, however, copy of the sale deed despite demand by the defendant vide notice dated 22.9.2004, was not supplie...
Granite (India) Ltd. Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN79
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Granite (India) Ltd., Alwar challenging the notification dt. 03.11.1989 and corrigendum thereto vide subsequent notification dt. 18.01.1990 by which industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication with the prayer that such notifications be quashed and set aside and alternatively also challenging the award dt. 21.11.1998 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur.2. This Court by its order dt. 20.04.2000 while issuing notice to the respondents-workmen passed ad interim ex-parte stay order staying operation of the award. The respondents-workmen filed application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). 3. Application under Section 17-B of the Act was contested by the petitioner, who contended that in peculiar facts of the present case, they could not be required to pay the last wages drawn by the workmen in terms of Section 17- B of the Act. ...
Rajendra Baheti Vs. Addl. District Judge (Ft) No. 2 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN94
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 is aggrieved against the order dt. 19.08.2006 by which the trial Court allowed the plaintiffs' application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.3. According to the plaintiffs, after filing of the written statement by the defendants, the plaintiffs found that the plaintiffs committed mistake in describing the plaintiffs and defendants Hindu undivided family as Bagtawarmal Ramswaroop whereas subsequently, he came to know that the name of Joint Hindu Family was Balchand Nathuram, therefore, they may be permitted to amend the plaint so as to describe the property for which the suit for partition has been filed to be the property of Joint Hindu family of the plaintiffs having name Balchand Nathuram. That application was allowed by the trial Court and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend paras No. 1, 3 and 7. The plaintiffs also sought deletion of certain properties from the schedule of the properties a...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Devi Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN241
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.1. After having received a secrete information about cultivation of crop of opium, the Station House Officer, Police Station Kelwada along with motbirs reached at the field of accused respondent Devi Singh on 21.03.2004 where accused respondent was present. He was informed about the information and after giving the personal search informed accused respondent Devi Singh to search the field for cultivation of opium plants in his field and after giving a notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') took search of the field and 105 plants of opium poppy were recovered from the agricultural field of accused respondent Devi Singh. Two samples weighing 250 each were taken and sealed. Rest of the plants which weighing 2.500 Kg were sealed separately. On completing formality accused respondent Devi Singh was arrested on the spot and a case under Section 8/18 of the Act was registered. After investigation ...
Ghanshyam Vs. Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, M.A.C.T. Cases ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ1946
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. On 16.5.1999, while travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing registration No. RJ 21-P 0450 from Khinvsar to Jodhpur, the petitioner sustained injuries when the said bus collided with an oncoming truck bearing registration No. AS 25-8813. The petitioner and so also several other victims of such vehicular accident filed their respective claim applications seeking compensation; and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4], Jodhpur, proceeded to make a common award in their relation on 26.11.2005. So far the petitioner's case (Claim Case No. 884 of 2004) was concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded him compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,000 together with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum while fastening equal liability on the insurer of the bus and the owner of the truck involved in the accident.2. Being aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded and seeking enhancement, the petitioner has chosen to prefer ...
NasruddIn Vs. Addl. District Judge No. 2 and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3612
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the judgment rendered by Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) & Judl. Magistrate, (West) Bhilwara dated 02.06.2007, by which, the learned trial Court passed decree for eviction and for payment of rent. In the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 5, C.P.C. was filed against the petitioner. Upon the application filed under Order 41, Rule 5, C.P.C., learned trial Court vide its order dated 02.08.2007 while staying operation of the judgment passed order for payment of mesne profits of Rs. 2,000/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is challenging the said order and has prayed that this Court, in the case of Mahaveer Prasad v. Saraswati Devi Ojha through LRs, reported in 2008(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1568, in similar facts and circumstances, exercised jurisdiction under Article 227, Constitution of India in the case.3. It is submitted ...
Munni Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN184
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Admit.2. On the request of learned Counsel for both the parties, the final arguments were heard in the appeal and the same is being disposed of. 3. The only point involved in the present appeal is about the application of proper multiplier for the purpose of awarding compensation in respect of death of Maniram, aged about 45 years. So far as point relating to death of deceased Maniram because of negligence on the part of defendant-respondents is concerned, the same is not in dispute as the present appeal has been preferred for the enhancement of the amount of compensation, therefore, whole facts are not necessary to be discussed herein. The age of the deceased is also not in dispute. As per the finding of the trial Court, the Maniram was 45 years of age.4. The only submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that although this is a case of fatal accident but learned trial Court has applied the multiplier of 10 only, whereas as per second schedule append...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »