Rajasthan Court July 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.
Lokesh Vs. Arjun Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN338
N.P. Gupta, J.1. These three appeals arise out of common judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand dt. 30.11.1995 accepting three claim petitions, and making an award of Rs. 51,600/- in Claim Petition No. 274 filed by the claimant Fateh Lal while awarding a sum of Rs. 49,000/- in each of the Claim Petition Nos. 275 and 276 filed on behalf of Manoj and Lokesh respectively. Three claim petitions were consolidated and evidence was recorded in Claim Case No. 274.2. The necessary facts are that on 15.03.1990 the three claimants being father and sons; Fateh Lal being father and other two being minor sons aged 8 years and 5 years respectively were traveling on motor cycle No. RRY-7745 from Molela to Khamnor. On way delinquent truck No. RJY-4993 driven by Arjun Lal was driven negligently, and hit against motor cycle causing injuries to all the three claimants. On these facts claiming permanent disablement to have been suffered by each of the three claimants different am...
Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Mohit Trading Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)12VatReporter92
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Admittedly, according to the facts of this case, the order dated 7.7.2003 passed by Commercial Taxes Officer, Hanumangarh was challenged by the assessee by way of filing an appeal before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner. The said authority passed an order in appeal filed by the assessee on 21.9.07 whereby the case was remitted to the AA. The remand order dated 21.9.07 was further challenged by the Department before the learned Tax Board. However, before adjudication of the appeal by the Tax Board filed by the Department, the AA finally decided the matter vide order dated 30.11.2007 in pursuance of the remand order passed by Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) on 21.9.2007. Meaning thereby the order passed by Dy. Commissioner (appeals) was complied with before adjudication of the appeal by Tax Board, therefore, when the appeal came up for hearing before the learned Tax Board, the Tax Board observed that...
Ashok Gupta Vs. Oswal Singh Sabha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3338
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this second appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment dt. 1.8.2008 passed by the A.D.J. No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 51/07, whereby, the learned lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dt. 19.4.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Jodhpur City, Jodhpur, by which, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and passed decree for eviction against the appellant-defendant.2. The respondent-plaintiff Oswal Singh Sabha preferred suit for eviction against the appellant-defendant from the house situated in Ghoron-ka-Chowk, Jodhpur for two grounds viz., default in payment of rent and non-user of the house. The trial Court framed the following issues :1- vk;k izfroknh us ebZ 1998 ds i'pkr~ dk fdjk;k oknh dks vnk ugh dj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;frdze fd;k gS ftEes oknh----2- vk;k izfroknh 6 ekg ls vf/kd vof/k ls oknxzLr edku esa fuokl ugh dj jgk gS vkSj fcuk ;qfDr;qDr vk/kkj ds 6 ekg ls vf/kd vof/k rd mDr tk;nkn d...
Municipal Board Vs. Rajkumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN547
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the Municipal Board, Nohar is challenging the judgment and decree dt. 03.05.2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Nohar in Civil Appeal Decree No. 27/2000, whereby, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dt. 14.09.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Nohar in Civil Original Suit No. 119/1997 (56/1990), by which, the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed in his favour.2. Undisputedly, in the auction proceedings, plot No. 11 was allotted to the respondent-plaintiff while accepting his bid of Rs. 30,000/- and, out of the bid amount, one-fourth amount was deposited by him immediately; and, thereafter, he was to deposit the remaining three-fourth amount, but, upon physical verification of the plot, the fact came to the knowledge of the respondent-plaintiff that upon the said plot No. 11, there is a pucca tar-road, therefore, possession was not possible to b...
Surender Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN209
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this special appeal a challenge is given to the judgment dated 28.10.1998 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant, impugning validity of sentence recorded by the Summary Security Force Court vide order dated 03.05.1989.2. In brief, facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a charge sheet alleging that 'he, while posted at internal security post Khubhan on 01.11.1988 at about 1750 hrs. fired two rounds from his rifle 7.62 SLR (Body No. 1934) at Nos. 85102613 Const. V. Purushottam of the same Coy. with an intent to kill.' The act of the appellant was termed as an offence under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and also a civil offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The Deputy Inspector General (Headquarters) after reaching at the conclusion that the case in question was not falling within the exception provided under Section 46 of the Act of 1968 directed to try the appellant by Summar...
inder Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN404
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The appellant by this appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 09.12.1996 dismissing the appellant's writ petition.2. Necessary facts are that the petitioner was allotted land in question total measuring 23 bighas and 4 biswas in Chak No. 26 P.T.D. in Sq. Nos. 305/355 and 304/356 in the year 1976. However, on a complaint made about the allottee being not bonafide agriculturist, and being employee of the R.S.E.B. This allotment was cancelled vide order dt. 24.10.1980 by the Dy. Commissioner (Colonisation). This order has been produced in the writ petition as Annexure-1. Appeal against that order filed before the Additional Colonisation Commissioner, and revision before the Board of Revenue also were dismissed vide orders 18.07.1981 and 26.03.1984 respectively.3. The ground given by the Dy. Commissioner (Colonisation) was that the certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B. dt. 05.09.1980 shows that the appellant was employed on the ...
Ram Singh Vs. Laxmi Enterprises
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN533
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this revision petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dt. 21.07.2003 passed upon the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. in the Civil Original Case No. 244/03 pending before the trial Court, whereby, the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bhilwara rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C.2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the non petitioner filed suit against the petitioner for recovery of money amounting to Rs. 2,37,908/- and the case of the non petitioner plaintiff is that he is registered Sub-Broker under the Securities and Exchange Board of India and pursuing business of sale and purchase of shares undertaken on delivery basis as well as forward transactions on deposit of margin-money. It is stated in the plaint that all the transactions are carried out under the rules and by-laws framed by the Bombay Sto...
Dhanraj @ Dhanna Gotiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj706
S.P. Pathak, J.1. Appellant Dhanraj @ Dhanna Gotiya son of Bhanwar Lal has filed this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th January 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Baran in Sessions Case No. 125/2003 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven days' simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that Babu Lal PW.1 submitted a written report Ex. P.1 on the basis of which a formal FIR Ex. P.2 was...
Dhanu Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN200
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Issue notice for final disposal.2. Mr. M.R. Singhvi representing the Excise Department present in Court is directed to accept notice for the respondents. He accepts the notice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has supplied the copy of writ petition to Mr. Singhvi. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of at admission stage.3. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure 5 dt. 17.07.2007 passed by respondent Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 69(5) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950' hereinafter) against the order of Excise Commissioner, Udaipur dt. 21.02.2005 came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited 75% of the amount of demand created by the order appealed against.4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.5. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitione...
Subhan Khan Vs. Lrs. of Late Pukhe Khan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj2811
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this revision petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 25.5.2009 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order 14 Rule 5, C.P.C., read with Section 151, C.P.C.2. According to facts of the case, suit was filed by the petitioner plaintiff on 2.6.1989. On 21.3.2009, evidence of the defendants was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments. Thereafter, an application was filed under Order 14 Rule 5, C.P.C, read with Section 151, C.P.C by the petitioner-plaintiff for framing another issue which is said to be legal issue. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that application under Order 14 Rule 5, C.P.C. can be filed at any stage, therefore, the learned trial Court committed error while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5, C.P.C. on the ground that it has been filed at the final stage. In support of his argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited attention of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »