Rajasthan Court August 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.
Aasu Vs. Say Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN175
Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. This is second appeal by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dt. 08.08.2008 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Kishangarhbas Camp Tijara, District Alwar in Civil Appeal No. 16/2004 whereby the judgment and decree dt. 02.12.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tijara in Civil Suit No. 67/1997 was affirmed by which the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract was dismissed.2. The case of the plaintiff as alleged by him is that he and the defendant entered into an agreement by which the defendant agreed to sell the disputed land and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant as advance in the presence of the witnesses at the time of execution of the sale agreement and the possession of disputed land was also handed over to the plaintiff and the remaining amount was agreed upon to pay at the time of registry of the disputed land but thereafter ...
Chhoga Lal Vs. Rajasthan Jan Jati Kshetriya Vikas Sahkari Sangh and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3684
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging impugned order Annex.-13 dated 22.11.1993 and order Annex.-17 dated 19.12.1994, whereby he has been penalized under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the CCA Rules' hereinafter) whereby he has been punished with dismissal from service. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 8.4.1994 (Annexure-18) and to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.2. According to facts of the case, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 16.07.1991 by which it was alleged as under:1- vkjksi la[;k & ,d & izcU/k funs'kd jktl la?k mn;iqj ds vkns'k fnukad 1-6-90 ds rgr vkidks ekgh ,oa ,Q Mh , ds tyk'k;ks esa eRL;k[ksV o vU; eRL; lEcfU/kr dk;Z iwoZ ds vkns'k ds dze esa lEikfnr djuk Fkk A bl ij Hkh vkius ekgh ,oa dMkuk tyk'k ds eRL; fodz; vfxze jkf'k dh le; jgrs iz/kku dk;kZy; eRL; vuqHkkx A ys[kk vuqHkkx izcU/kd foRr izcU...
Sushma (Smt.) and anr. Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN553
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The claimants appellants have filed this appeal against the award dt. 13.07.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa in motor accident Claim Case No. 381/1997.2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts as the only question is whether the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants appellants is fair and reasonable?.3. The claimant appellant No. 1 Sushma Sharma is the wife and the claimant appellant No. 2 Ankit @ Ilu is the son of the deceased Ashok Kumar who died in an accident on 19.10.1997. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2400/- per month and after deducting 1/3 of it on account of his personal expenses and after adopting a multiplier of 15 calculated the dependency at Rs. 1600X12X15= Rs. 2,88,000/- and after adding Rs. 21,500/- on various counts passed a total award of Rs. 3,09,500/- in favour of the claimants appellants. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the claimants appellants.5. Learned Counsel for the cl...
Anil Malik and ors. Vs. Smt. Adarsh Kumari Malik and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN602
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The claimants appellants have filed this appeal against the award dt. 10.09.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Special Court Dacoity Affected Area, Dholpur in motor accident Claim Case No. 55/94.2. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 56,000/- to the claimant appellant No. 3 Reema on account of the injuries suffered by her and Rs. 5,000/- each to the claimants appellants Nos. 1 to 5 for loss of affection due to the death of one Ghanshyam Das in an accident on 20.02.1994. Out of this total amount of Rs. 81,000/- so awarded learned Tribunal deducted Rs. 50,000/- of interim award on account of no fault liability due to the death of Ghanshyam Das and thereafter passed an award of Rs. 31,000/- in favour of the claimants appellants. 3. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.4. Learned Counsel for the claimants appellants submits that the amount of interim award on the ground of no fault liability cannot be deducted from the compensation amount which has been awarded ...
Ridhi Sidhi Associates Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj643; 2009(3)WLN524
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 2/4/2009 disposing of the two writ petitions with the direction to the petitioners to appear before the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 13/4/2009 and on that date the Secretary, Mines Department, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, was directed to take final decision and decide the grievance of the petitioners about the contract in question.2. The facts leading to filing of the two writ petitions by the unsuccessful bidders in the contractual process, which was initiated by the Mining Department of Govt. of Rajasthan for awarding contract of collection of excess royalty, are in the following manner.3. On 12/1/2009 the notice inviting tenders was issued by the Director, Mines for collection of excess royalty for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2011. The tenders were to be submitted by 3 pm on 4.2.2009 and the tenders were to b...
Mandir Shri Punrasar Hanumanji Pujari Trust and ors. Vs. Murti Shri Pu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj156
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioners Under Section 114, read with Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. praying that the review petition may be accepted and after reviewing and re-considering the judgment dated 28.7.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 158 of 2009, the revision petition may be allowed in terms of the prayer made in the revision petition.2. I have heard Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned Counsel for the petitioners on the instant petition for review/reconsideration.3. In this review petition, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the revision petition challenge was made by the petitioners to quash Order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner passed upon the application filed Under Section 92, C.P.C. by the respondent-plaintiffs and it is specifically stated that Section 92 and 93 do not apply for the public trusts and application Under Section 92 was not maintainable. As per learned Counsel...
Nimt Mahila B. Ed. College Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Raj9
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders dated 6-5-2008 and 19-8-2008, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. By the former order, the National Council for Teacher Education (the 'NCTE' for short) has withdrawn the recognition to the petitioner institution. By the latter order, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority of the NCTE.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 4-7-2005 the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE granted recognition to the petitioner institution for running course of B. Ed. with an intake of 100 seats w.e.f. June, 2005. On 2-12-2006 the Committee of NCTE further granted recognition to the petitioner institution to run the STC course.According to the petitioner, the NCTE granted the recognition after inspecting the institute and after considering the reports of the visiting teams. Despite the excellent infrastructure available at the institute, but because of certain complaints made by few disgruntled s...
Bhola Shankar and Laxmi Narayan Agrawal Vs. Rent Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN556
Dalip Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These two writ petitions have been filed against a common order dt. 05.09.2008 which has been passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the applications filed by the landlord for consolidation of the two suits.3. The writ petition No. 10770/2008 has been filed by the erstwhile landlord Bhola Shankar seeking the relief of revision of rent under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and for eviction under Section 9 of the Act of 2001.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Bhola Shankar, the erstwhile owner, submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the possession of the property in dispute was handed over to him by the tenant in the month of May, 2007 and he has even sold the property in dispute to the respondent No. 3 Laxmi Narayan Agarwal vide registered sale-deed dt. 09.04.2008.5. In that view of the matter, so far as the relief under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 for eviction is concerned, the same does ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Central Vs. Anil Hastkala (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Raj)417; [2010]186TAXMAN365(Raj)
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Since bunch of cross-petitions filed by Assessees as well as by Revenue assailing orders of Settlement Commission in cases of different assessees, involve self-same issue for consideration; hence at request, were finally heard together for its disposal by this common order at admission stage. Primary question for consideration in a bunch of writ petitions preferred by Revenue and cross petitions by different assessees is with regard to applications filed before settlement commission on or before 01/06/2007 and assailing orders of Settlement Commission, on the premise that if impugned order of Settlement commission Under Section 245D(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) is held to be legally unsustainable, in such an eventuality, whether matters are to be remitted back to settlement commission to examine afresh in accordance with law or to the assessing authority in view of proceedings initiated under Chapter-XIX-A on being held to be abated in terms of Section 245HA of t...
Laxman (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. Vs. Ram Chandra (Since Deceas ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN599
Dalip Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dt. 11.02.2004 by which the final decree proceedings in a suit for partition were dismissed as having abated by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajgarh.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the preliminary decree was passed on 04.11.1989 and it was upheld by the learned appellate Court by judgment and decree dt. 17.05.1997 in which the shares of the parties were determined as per the decree. The plaintiff moved the learned trial Court for preparation of the final decree and the same came to be passed by the learned trial Court on 29.08.1997.4. An application for preparation of final decree was instituted by the plaintiff and during the pendency of the same, the plaintiff died on 15.07.2000. In the meantime, the second appeal before the High Court against the preliminary decree which was pending was dismissed vide judgment dt. 11.02.2004. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »