Rajasthan Court July 2009 Judgments
Kanti Lal Vs. Moti Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN466
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim petition vide order dated 19.5.1997 passed by the MACT, Doongarpur rejecting claim case No. 86/1996. The accident in question took place on 23.9.1995 while he was travelling with his brother Moti Lal in jeep No. GJ-9/94 from Udaipur to Doongarpur and at about 9:00 PM near the turn of Gamdi Bus Stand on account of rash and negligent driving of the said jeep, it collided with pillar and fell down in a pit and on account of the said accident, the claimant Kanti Lal suffered injuries for which the present claim petition was filed by him.2. Learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground of alleged accident of the bus No. RJ 12/P-0076 which used to be driven by the appellant himself as driver and the said bus also fell in the ditch on 2.9.1995 about 21 days prior to the accident in question by the jeep on 23.9.1995. The learned Tribunal has rejected the clai...
Tag this Judgment!Banshi Lal Vs. Shri Mahendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN463
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel.2. This misc. appeal is directed against the order dt. 22.11.1996 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree dt. 20.09.1996 was rejected by the learned trial Court.3. The learned trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that the summons of the Court were served on one Radha, claiming to be the wife of plaintiff Banshi Lal Teli and, therefore, the service was treated as sufficient and complete and ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the defendant and the suit was decreed ex-parte. The suit was for recovery of money.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that the name of wife of defendant Banshi Lal Teli was Narbada and not Radha Sahu. His address was also 36, Ashwini Bazar, Udaipur (Raj.) and not Nehru Bazar, Udaipur and, therefore, the summons wrongly served on one Radha was treated as sufficient and trial Court proceeded ex-parte.5. This Court has also ...
Tag this Judgment!Gehimal and ors. Vs. Murlidhar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN464
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. With the consent of parties, the matter is finally decided at this stage.2. Instant petition has been filed by defendant-petitioner assailing order of learned trial Judge dt. 27.09.2001 [Annex.5] whereby application for provisional rent pending suit has been determined-against which petitioner preferred appeal which was also dismissed on 06.02.2008 [Annex. 6].3. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default under Section 13(3) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. Written statement has been filed by petitioner-defendant. Pending suit, learned trial Judge after taking note of material on record, provisional rent was determined and it was ordered to be paid along with interest and the appeal preferred by petitioner was also rejected. Hence, this petition.4. Counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that suit premises was taken on rent by plaintiff's mother Smt. Rameshwari Devi and after her death, petitioner an...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj69
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are the employees of units of Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. (for short 'the federation'). Earlier there were four cooperative societies namely, Rajasthan Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gulabpura ; Gangapur Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gangapur; Ganganagar Sahakari Spinning Mills Ltd., Hanumangarh and Gulabpura Cooperative Ginning Pressing Society Ltd., Gulabpura. These units merged in one society by constituting Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. The age of superannuation of the employees of the federation was 58 years. Then a decision was taken by the State Government under Rule 39(4) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 on 17.9.2008 that the age of superannuation of the employee be increased upon fulfilling the conditions for the societies in which there is capital of the State in the society or some fund has be...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Chand Vs. Omkar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3417
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this second appeal, at the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was formulated for adjudicating this appeal:Whether in case when the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract even then the Courts below were right in refusing to grant decree of specific performance of contract?2. In this second appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and decree passed by Addl. District Judge, Bhilwara dated 23.4.1990 passed in Civil Appeal No. 38/85 whereby the learned appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1985 passed by Munsif & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bijolia in Civil Original Case No. 29/82.3. According to the facts of the case, the plaintiff-appellant preferred a suit for specific performance of contract which was said to be written in between the parties on 18.1.1978. A prayer was made in the suit that the decree against the defendant respondents be passed for specific performance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Lal and anr. Vs. Ratan Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN310
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsels.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dt. 02.01.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirohi allowing the appeal of the plaintiff against the order dt. 04.11.2008 of the learned trial Court whereby the learned trial Court had rejected the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. of the plaintiff.3. Learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner before this Court, Mr. S.L. Jain submits that the public way in question existed for long through the khasra Nos. 463 and 464 which belong to the plaintiffs Nathu and Ratan Lal and, therefore, since they had closed the said public way, the same denied access to khasra No. 416 belonging to the present petitioner Shankar Lal.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant Shankar Lal, Mr. S.L. Jain drew the attention of the Court towards the map produced before the learned trial Court annexed at page 39 of the writ petition and submitted that from the point marked 'A' on public wa...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Chitoda Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3385
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This order is in disposal of two applications moved in this writ petition, IA No. 6889/2009 and IA No. 10881/2009.2. In IA No. 6889/2009, the applicant Ashok Kumawat seeks his impleadment in this writ petition as respondent while by the other application, IA No. 10881/2009, the petitioner Anil Chitoda seeks specific order of this Court in relation to the interim order passed earlier in this petition that the same having not been specifically vacated, continues to remain in operation.3. The matter being considered in relation to the said applications only, elaborate discussion on the merits of the case does not appear necessary; and a brief reference to the background facts and relevant aspects would suffice.4. The petitioner is said to have been elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhuwana, Panchayat Samiti Badgaon in the month of January 2005. According to the petition averments, the petitioner came to know about an order dated 09.02.2009 (Annex. 1) as issued by...
Tag this Judgment!Jethmal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN249
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The unsuccessful appellant has filed present appeal. The appellant had filed writ petition on 29.05.2000, praying for a direction to the Municipal Board to restore the status quo of the land in dispute, and the shop, as it was on 29.03.2000, just before the shop was demolished, and the petitioner's possession was disturbed, and has also claimed adequate compensation.2. The factual averments were, that the petitioner was allotted land measuring 16 x 6 ft. on rent in accordance with law, and since then the petitioner was continuing in possession, having taken electric and water connection till 29.03.2000, on which date employees and officers of the respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. the Municipal Board and the Assistant Collector demolished the shop, and took away the material of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced the permission letter dt. 04.03.1968 as Annexure-2, and has produced certain demand notice about arrears of rent. It is also alleged, that the fact is that ...
Tag this Judgment!L.Rs. of Tribhuvan Dutt Vs. Jai Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3364
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal was filed by the tenant Tribhuvan Dutt being aggreived of the order dated 1.4.2008 passed by the Add). District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur rejecting the application filed by the legal representatives of appellant defendant under Order 21 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 3(vii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.2. The learned trial court has passed the eviction decree by allowing civil suit No. 130/94 (Jai Narain v. Tribhuvan Dutt) on 1.12.2005. The defendant tenant preferred the appeal before the learned first appellate court namely civil appeal No. 39/2006. During the pendency of the said appeal, the defendant tenant Tribhuvan Dutt expired on 29/5/2007 and upon his death his son Om Prakash filed the said application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC on 17/7/2007 seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of late Tribhuvan Dutt namely his wife Smt. Tulsi Devi and his three sons Om Prakash, Jagdish Prakash and Jai Prakash. The pl...
Tag this Judgment!Sukirti Devi Purohit (Smt.) Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN484
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 18.12.2000, disposing of the writ petition while making substantial observations having the effect of keeping virtual remedy open to the petitioner.2. The grievance of the appellant is, that the learned Single Judge has himself observed that though the question raised by the appellant requires consideration, notwithstanding this, the learned Judge has not entertained the writ petition, and has left the appellant to the remedy of already pending civil suit. It was submitted that from the documents, Annex. 4, Annex. 13 and other documents annexed with the writ petition, coupled with the provisions of Sections 73, 75 and 90 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act and the rules framed under the said Act being The Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Division, Reconstruction and Improvements of Plots) Rules, 1975, more specially Rules 5 and 8 etc., also if read in the background of the estab...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »