Rajasthan Court May 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.
Jhabar Ram Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN181
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dt. 10.07.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4 Shri Lachhu Ram against the judgment and decree dt. 10.04.1991 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (in short 'RAA' hereinafter), Bikaner has been allowed. Consequently, the judgment and decree dt. 28.02.1986 passed by the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh dismissing the suit preferred by the petitioner, stands restored.2. The brief facts relevant for the present purpose are that late Shri Aad Ram was holding 106 bighas of land in Punsisar and Somsisar, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu. He was also holding 75.15 bighas of land in Tidiasar, Tehsil Nohar, District Sri Ganganagar. Late Shri Aad Ram was survived by four sons namely, Girdhari, Lachhu Ram, Farsa Ram and Oma Ram. Out of these four sons, Oma Ram expired issue less . Farsa Ram also expired living behind his widow Smt. Shera. The petitioner herein is adopt...
Laxmi Devi Garg (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN267
N.P. Gupta, J.1. To challenge correctness of the judgment dt. 11.05.2000 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2251/1998, this special appeal is preferred.2. The facts necessary to be noticed are that:(1) Shri Shantilal Garg, husband of the appellant, while working as Lecturer in a Government College, died on 10.12.1997;(2) the appellant, on 29.12.1997, submitted an application as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') seeking appointment for her son Shri Dinesh Kumar, aged 15 years 6 months, as Lower Division Clerk, the post for which he was possessing educational eligibility as prescribed for direct recruitment as per provisions of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1957'); and(3) the Joint Director, Department of College Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, by his communication dt. 20.05.1998 inf...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN372
Mohammad Rafiq J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Oriental Insurance Company against the interim award dt. 18.12.1999 and the final award dt. 27.09.1999 with the prayer that amount deposited in the F.D.R. pursuant to the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur dt. 27.09.1999 may be directed to released to the petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 4 may be directed to release such amount it has already been withdrawn by them pursuant to interim-order and final award.2. Contention of Shri Kishan Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even though father and mother of the deceased filed claim petition before the MACT, Jaipur which resulted in the interim-award dt. 18.12.1999 and final award dt. 27.09.1999 passed on that premise in Lok Adalat but the petitioner later on came to know that wife and minor sons of the deceased each has separately filed a claim petition before the MACT Ajmer which was later on transferred to MACT, Beawar. This fact was ...
Parmanand Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN596
Dalip Singh, J.1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the applicant-appellant against the judgment dt. 06.10.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Misc. Case No. 63/1994 by which the application submitted by the applicant-appellant for grant of probate in respect of the Will executed by the deceased Smt. Kadam Bai in favour of Hari Narain father of the appellant was dismissed.2. The facts in brief which are relevant for consideration of the present appeal are that the deceased Smt. Kadam Bai in the first instance executed a Will dt. 13.12.1984 in favour of Om Prakash respondent No. 1 who is said to be the son of the daughter of the deceased Smt. Kadam Bai.3. Thereafter the deceased Smt. Kadam Bai executed another Will dt. 14.03.1985 in favour of Hari Narain the father of the appellant cancelling the earlier Will dt. 13.12.1984 executed in favour of respondent No. 1 Om Prakash.4. Hari Narain father of the applicant predeceased the testator Smt. Kadam Bai hav...
Bhag Chand Vs. A.D.J. No. 5 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj178; RLW2009(3)Raj2081
ORDERDalip Singh, J.1. The questions for consideration which have been referred to the Larger Bench for decision are as follows:(1) Whether Section 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 has its overriding effect on Section 32(3)(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001;(2) Whether the suits, applications and other proceedings relating to fixation of standard or provisional rent under Sections 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which have been saved by Section 32(3) (a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, will be. governed by the provisions of the Old Act of 1950, after coming into force of the New Act of 2001 or will be governed by the provisions of the New Act of 2001 as Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1950, having been impliedly repealed, by virtue of Section 29 of the New Act of 2001 as held by the Division Bench in Kamal Kishore's case (supra)?2. The background in which these questions arise are that a writ petition was filed by t...
Madan Lal Khatik Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN401
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. By way of this writ petition, filed only on 23.03.2009, the petitioner seeks restoration of his authorisation as fair price shopkeeper that was cancelled as back as on 27.09.2005.2. From the averments taken in the petition and the documents annexed thereto it appears that the petitioner, who had been granted authorisation as fair price shopkeeper at Gadarmala, District Bhilwara under the Rajasthan Food Grains and other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 ['the Order of 1976'], was served with a show cause notice dt. 06.08.2005 [Annex.1] by the District Supply Officer, Bhilwara ['the DSO'] pointing out that in the inspection carried out on 11.08.2004, several irregularities were found including the following:(1) LVkWd jftLVj ch-ih-,y-] vUR;ksn;] dsjksflu fnukad 31-07-2004 ds ckn la/kkfjr ugha ik;s x;sA(2) ,l-th-vkj-okbZ xsgwa jsdkMZ vuqlkj 135-95 fDoUVy xsgwa HkkSfrd lR;kiu ij de ik;k x;kA(3) o fujh{k.k ;wfuV jftLVj miyC/k ugha feykA(4) ew...
Surjeet Kaur and ors. Vs. Teja Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj81
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. The appellants have filed this second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. challenging the validity of the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2009 passed by Addl. District Judge, Sangaria in Civil Appeal No. 8/2005, whereby, the learned Addl. District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25,05.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangaria in Civil Case No. 75/93. 2. According to brief facts of the case, a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 21.05.1984 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff against Pratap Singh, in which, it is stated that 4 bigha of agriculture land of the plaintiff is situated in Chak 2 NKR, Khata No. 14/14, Murabba 16 and his name is also entered in the revenue record. Adjoining his land, 3 bigha land situated in Murabba 15 belonging to the respondent was sold by way of agreement dated 21.05.1984 by way of executing written agreement. According to the plaintiff, he has made all his efforts to get executed the sale-de...
Ramanand Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN237
Deepak Verma, C.J.1. As per office-note, this appeal was barred by 5 days. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the delay has been explained properly. The application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal stands condoned.2. With consent, arguments heard.3. Appellant appears to be aggrieved by an order dt. 10.07.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in his Writ Petition No. 2357/2004. The prayer made before the learned Single Judge, by the appellant, by filing Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution, was for grant of benefit of the services rendered by him in the Family Planning Department, from his initial appointment on 18.11.1968 for the purpose of granting selection scale with all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge, while referring to proviso III to Item-3 of the Circular dt. 17.02.1998 issued by the Finance Department (Rules Division) of the State of Rajasthan, came to the con...
Loona Ram Alias Babu Lal Vs. Rameshwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj142; RLW2009(4)Raj3031
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Instant revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 27-3-2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner in Original Suit No. 109/2009, whereby, the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC by the petitioner-defendant was rejected.2. According to facts of the case, a civil suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff for specific performance for agreement to sale for purchase of the property belonging to the petitioner. In the plaint, it is alleged by the respondent-plaintiff that agreement to sell was made between the parties for sale of the house in question measuring 191.25 Sq. Yd. situated at Gangashahar, Bikaner, for which, he paid a sum of Rs. 65,000/- on 25-2-2006 and further sum of Rs. 7,35,000/- on 25-3-2006; but, the petitioner-defendant did not execute the registered sale-deed in his favour, therefore, the suit may be decreed and petitioner-defendant may be directed to execute the registered sale-deed in his f...
Mahendra Rai Baxi Through L.R. Son Vyomesh Chandra Baxi Vs. Smt. Laxmi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3588
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant tenant against the concurrent eviction decree passed by the two courts below under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. The present appellants are legal heirs of original tenant -Mahendra Rai Baxi namely; Vyomesh Chandra Baxi, his son and Smt. Dropadi Devi, his wife. The plaintiff landlord is Smt. Laxmi Devi Pungaliya. Inter alia the ground of eviction was also subletting of suit premises, a shop situated at Jalori Gate, Jodhpur to respondent No. 2 - Shri Prakash son of Shri Ishwar, partner of M/s. Apex Dry Cleaners.2. At the time of admission of present second appeal, the following three substantial questions were framed by this Court:1. Whether Sub-clause (b) of Clause (b) of Clause (vii) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 applies to a case where a suit was brought against the original tenant without terminating his tenancy under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »