Rajasthan Court August 2009 Judgments
Ganesh Ram Through Lrs. Vs. Sanwarmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN514
Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. A decree for eviction, upholding availability of grounds of sub-letting and reasonable and bonafide necessity under Sections 13(1)(e) & (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction), Act, 1950 (in short the Act) was passed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff-landlord (hereinafter shall be referred as plaintiff) and against respondent-tenant (hereinafter shall be referred as defendant) by learned Munsif, Shrimadhopur. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana and decree of the trial Court was set aside. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC).2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for rent and eviction of the suit shop with the averments that suit shop was on rent with the defendant since 20.05.1969 at the rate of Rs. 25/- per mo...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntla (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Ran Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN532
Guman Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of appellant-dependents of deceased Omprakash @ Pappu Rajput for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh (Ajmer) vide judgment dt. 12.06.1998 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded by way of compensation for the death of deceased caused in the accident.3. The only challenge in the appeal pertains to the quantum of compensation.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 1050/- while it should be computed by taking second schedule to the M.V. Act to the guideline. It is also submitted that adequate amount for loss of love and affection and consortium has not been awarded and only consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded under these heads. It is further submitted that instead of deducting more than 1/3, deduction of 1/4 earning deserves to be made as agains...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. Ramesh Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN492
Guman Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of injured-appellant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur city vide judgment dt. 22.07.2000 whereby a sum of Rs. 57,600/- was awarded by way of compensation for 2.5% disability caused on account of injuries sustained in the accident.3. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that injured was a bachelor and he sustained injuries on his face which resulted into disfiguration and he is facing difficulty in marriage and other prospects and has to undergo plastic surgery for which he has to incurr expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/- and, as such, for pain and sufferings, a consolidated amount of Rs. 25000/- has been awarded under the head of disability. It is also submitted that Rs. 25,000/- awarded for disability is minimum amount under Section 140 of the M.V. Act as no...
Tag this Judgment!Lekhraj Vs. Kailashi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN107
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. At request of the parties, final arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for injunction in respect of property in dispute praying therein that the defendants may be restrained not to evict the plaintiff-petitioner therefrom without following due process of law; it was alleged that during the pendency of the suit the defendants have forcefully evicted the plaintiff-petitioner from the property in dispute; therefore, he moved an application for amendment in the suit under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dt. 23.01.2008; being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred.3. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that the suit for injunction was filed on 12.12.2005 wherein interim injunction order was passed on 15.12.2005 but still the plaintiff-petitioner was dispossessed on 28.01.2006; therefore, he moved a...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Mal JaIn Vs. Civil Judge (Senior Division) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN92
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that applicants-respondents No. 2 to 4 filed an application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 in the trial Court, wherein the notices were issued on 18.10.2007. The case was again listed on 05.01.2008. The applicants were present, but the notice of the non-applicant had not been received, therefore, the Court passed a fresh order to issue fresh notice to the non-applicant. Subsequently, on the basis of earlier report dt. 03.01.2008, an ex-parte order was passed against the non-applicant on 17.04.2008. The non-applicant moved an application for setting- aside the ex-parte proceedings under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on 23.04.2008 itself. However, the said application was rejected by the trial Court on 19.05.2008. Being aggrieved with the same, the non-applicant has preferred this writ petition.3. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN7
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Both the writ petitions are directed against the impugned order dt. 01.11.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hindaun City, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of finally. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1-Ashok Kumar filed a suit for recovery against defendant-appellants and during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC with the prayer that directions may be issued to the defendants to produce the stock register for the period from October, 1992 to 30.06.1993 granting agreement of contract and Schedule-G. The trial Court allowed the application and directed the defendants to produce the stock register. Since the directions were not complied with, therefore, plaintiff filed an application to struck off the defence and the same was allowed vide order dt. 17.04.1999. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants preferred S.B. Civil Misc. A...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Lal Vs. Bhanwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN520
Guman Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of injured-appellant Gopal Lal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur city, Jaipur vide judgment dt. 24.02.1996 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,01,500/- was awarded by way of compensation for 50% disability caused on account of injuries sustained in the accident.3. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation by way of lump sum while the amount deserves to be computed by adopting second schedule to the M.V. Act to be the guideline commensurating with the percentage of disability. It is also submitted that on account of serious injuries on head and on body, the injured sustained paralysis attack and sustained disability in both hands and legs to the extent of 50% and thereby he has been rendered jobless. It is also submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Meena and anr. Vs. Additional Civil Judge and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN208
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The defendant-petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dt. 02.08.2006 passed by the trial Court, whereby the applications under Order 8 Rule 10 and Order 8 Rule 1 CPC filed by the plaintiff for not taking the written-statement on record being filed after expiry of 90 days has been allowed and it has been directed that defendants' written-statement is not taken on record and the same can be kept in Part-D of the file. 3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No. 2 Smt. Chawali Meena filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioners in the trial Court along-with an application for temporary injunction. The defendants filed their written-statement in the trial Court on 01.08.2003. The plaintiff filed an application that written-statement has been filed after the expiry of period of 90 days, as provided under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, therefore, the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj JaIn and anr. Vs. Bhajan Lal Ghadisaj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN235
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that shop in dispute was rented out by late Shri Phool Chand Jain to respondent No. 1-Bhajan Lal on monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. After the death of original landlord late Shri Phool Chand Jain, the tenant-respondent No. 1 Bhajan Lal moved an application before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alwar under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 to the effect that after the death of late Shri Phool Chand Jain, the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 Shri Adesh Kumar Jain S/o late Shri Phool Chand Jain and Smt. Sumitra Devi, widow of late Shri Phool Chand Jain are claiming themselves as owner of the shop and are demanding monthly rent from him. Similarly, the non-applicant No. 4 Smt. Sunita Jain, W/o Shri Adesh Kumar Jain is also claiming herself as owner of the property and is demanding the monthly rent from him. Therefore, he is not aware as to who is com...
Tag this Judgment!Gyarsilal Vs. Brajmohan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN162
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of property in dispute on the basis of so-called lease-deed / Patta dt. 15.05.1986 alleged to have been issued by Gram Panchayat, Khori. The suit was contested by the defendants. During the trial of the suit, an objection was raised by the defendants in respect of admissibility of the Patta dt. 15.05.1986 in evidence being unstamped and unregistered and therefore the plaintiff moved an application under Section 11 read with Order 47(1) and Section 151 C.P.C. to admit the said Patta in evidence. The trial Court rejected the said application vide impugned order dt. 26.07.2005. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff has preferred this writ petition before this Court.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on earlier occasion, the same objection was raised by the defendants in the trial Court and vide order dt. 24.0...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »