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.
Geeta Devi (Smt.) Vs. the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 5 ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN566
Dalip Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is plaintiff's writ petition against the order of the learned Lower Appellate Court dt. 26.10.2005 by which the learned Lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction and dismissed the said application.3. Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of this writ petition are that the defendant-respondents wanted to make a passage to the garage in his house bearing No. 1932. The plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing No. 1933. The bone of contention is that in front of both the houses of the plaintiff (1933) and of the defendant-respondent (1932), there is in existence a 'chabutra', which as per the plaintiff is said to be a common one. The defendant wanted to demolish the part of the 'chabutra' in front of his house bearing No. 1932 so as to make a passage for hi...
Vimlesh (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Vijaya Ben (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN468
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The claimants appellants have filed this appeal against the award dt. 31.07.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in motor accident Claim Case No. 255/1995.2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts as the only question before me is that whether the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants appellants is just and reasonable. 3. The deceased Ashwani Kumar died as a result of an accident on 06.11.1994. Learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 3,09,600/-in favour of the claimants appellants. Aggrieved, the claimants appellants have filed this appeal.4. Learned Counsel for the claimants appellants submits that learned Tribunal after assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month deducted Rs. 1100/- per month on account of his personal expenses and assessed the dependency at Rs. 1400/- per month. He submits that learned Tribunal has committed grave illegality as not more than 1/3 of the income could be deducted for personal expens...
Durga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN512
Prakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's contention is that he is a handicapped person and was appointed as Cook on part time basis on fixed salary of Rs. 300/- per month at Government SC Hostel, Fatehgarh, Jaisalmer run by Social Welfare Department initially in the year 1997 and, thereafter, on regular basis from 11.07.1995.3. According to the petitioner in the Social Welfare Department appointments were given to various persons on fixed salary of Rs. 600/- and writ petition was preferred before this Court praying for regularization which was allowed and finally their matter reached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the basis of the statement made by the respondent-State Government, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2273/1994 alongwith other connected matters in regard to regularization vide judgment dt. 29.03.1996 on the basis of draft plan/scheme prepared by the respondent-State department to regula...
Sanwal Ram Vs. Tara Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN536
Dalip Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dt. 15.07.2004. The order is in two parts, in the first part of the order, the application submitted by the respondent No. 5-RIICo. under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. for dismissal of the suit, has been dismissed. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has proceeded to state on the basis of the objections raised by the defendant No. 5 that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are not necessary parties, as they have no connection with the property in dispute.3. On the basis of the aforesaid objections, the learned trial Court has deleted the names of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from the array of the parties in the suit. 4. Against the aforesaid part of the order deleting the names of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from the array of the parties, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. The application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. submitted by the RIICo. (defendant No. 5) was dismissed...
Manoharlal Singhi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN554
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner retired as Headmaster of a school on 28.02.1982. He started living at Surat and Mumbai as his sons were living at Surat and Mumbai. At Mumbai, he suffered Introchantric fracture - fracture of neck of femur in right hip and he was admitted to the hospital at Mumbai where he remained indoor patient for 17 days and then was operated upon. He had to incur expenditure of Rs. 1,33,521/-. The petitioner submitted his bill for reimbursement as the petitioner was entitled to medical reimbursement as retired Government employee and pensioner. The respondents denied said payment but offered lumpsum Rs. 10,000/- which according to the respondents could have been the expenses if the petitioner would have got the treatment from the hospital at Jaipur.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was of the age of 82 years at that time when he suffered fracture at Mumbai could not have been brough...
Babu Ram Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj169
C.M. Totla, J.1. Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence awarded of ten years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1 lac for offence of Section 18 NDPS Act per judgment dated 31.08.87 in Sessions Case No. 10/1986.2. Alleged facts leading to appellant's prosecution are that on 24.01.1986, S.H.O. PW/8 making the entry No. 524 Ex. P/9 6 a.m. in Roznamcha that as per information of informer, certain person is to come in Godawas ki Dhani, so he along with named police person also proceeds in jeep (to act). As the team led by S.H.O. arrived at Godawas at about 8.00 a.m., a young man having a 'thaili' (bag) ran from out of Heera ki dhani towards west who was got hold of and he disclosed his name to be Babu Ram S/o Jora Ram and when the bag carried by him in hand checked, in it was opium like substance which when weighed procuring weight from dhani of Hapa Ram found 3 kg. Seizing substance and separating sample of 30 gm and keeping remaining substance in same polythene sealed separately. Memo of seiz...
Mohammad Zaheer Usta Vs. Secretary (Admn.) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3702
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Appeal No. 123/2005, whereby, the learned lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & Judl. Magistrate, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 236/2002.2. Brief facts of the case are that after passing the Senior Secondary Examination (Vocational) in Electrical Branch from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1997, the appellant-plaintiff was selected by the Board of Apprenticeship Training, North Region which is sponsored by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India and the appellant was placed for apprenticeship training under the Zonal Chief Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The appellant successfully completed the apprenticeship ...
Radhey Shyam Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN606
J.R. Goyal, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal filed against the judgment and decree dt. 30.11.1995 passed by Additional District Judge, Gangapurcity in Appeal No. 5/1989 whereby he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dt. 28.01.1989 passed by Munsif, Gangapurcity in Civil Suit No. 66/1977 by which the suit of plaintiff has been dismissed.2. The controversy involved in the present matter relates to jurisdiction in regard to maintainability of the suit which was filed by the plaintiff in relation to the disputed land. According to the plaintiff, he deposited 'nazrana' amount for the disputed land to the Municipal Board, Gangapurcity, obtained 'patta' and raised construction over some part of the disputed land and the remaining part was kept un-constructed by the plaintiff for the use as Chabutara on account of lack of funds but the defendants want to grab the disputed land and demolish the construction over the disputed land and to this effect the plaintiff subm...
Neeraj Dangi Vs. Jagsi Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN494
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The respondent No. 1 has filed this application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., on 02.04.2009 contending inter-alia that in the election petition, the sole ground alleged is of furnishing incomplete, wrong and suppressed information in the affidavit submitted by the respondent No. 1. It is alleged that election petition nowhere goes on to point out, as to which provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereafter to be referred to as 'the Act', or the Constitution puts an obligation for contesting candidate to furnish the records of sale and purchase of the assets, cash flow, educational qualification etc. It is then alleged, that according to Section 81 read with Section 100 of the Act, the election petition can only be filed on the grounds mentioned in the Act, the petitioner has invoked Section 100(1)(d) (i) and (iv), but it is not disclosed, as to how these Sections form a ground. Then regarding the reliance placed on violation of the voters right to k...
Ramdas Vs. Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN543
Dalip Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In the present writ petition bearing No. 6242/2009, filed on 18.05.2009, the plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the impugned order dt. 07.03.2009, whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application submitted by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 for permitting the defendant No. 1 to appear and lead evidence. 3. The back-ground in which this petition came to be filed, as would be seen from the earlier order-sheet dt. 29.05.2009 recorded by this Court is that vide order dt. 18.10.2001, which is available on record in the order-sheet supplied by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had submitted before the learned trial Court that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 do not wish to lead any evidence. The case was then posted for the evidence of the defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5.4. It may be stated here that the suit is one for partition in which the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have filed a joint written-statements through ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »