Rajasthan Court April 2010 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.
Smt. Vinod Kanwar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsels.2. By the impugned order Annex.R2/1 dated 8.7.2009, the respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short 'BPCL') rejected the application of the petitioner for LPG Gas Distributorship on three grounds:(i) That the petitioner failed to maintain the minimum balance of Rs. 10 lacs in her Saving Bank.(ii) That the requisite land in question was not owned and possessed by the petitioner; and(iii) There is variance in the income affidavit submitted with the application and finding at the field investigation.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the same distributorship in the category of Para-Military Forces (PMF) as her husband was awarded gallantry award Shourya Chakra by the President of India. He, therefore, submitted that the grounds taken by the respondent company are not good enough for rejecting the application as the temporary withdrawal from the saving bank account does not mean that ...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Kachra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This misc. appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The appellant -United India Insurance Company is challenging the judgment dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Udaipur in Claim Case No. 42/1995, whereby, the learned Commissioner allowed the compensation of Rs. 78,824/ in favour of respondents-claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 6% from the date of accident i.e. 07th May, 1995 to the date of depositing the amount by the insurance company before the Commissioner on 25th May, 1996, so also, imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/-against the insurance company.2. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire record of the case, so also, the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law emerges for consideration with regard to claim awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Udaipur because during pendency of claim proceedings, insurance company d...
Ramswaroop and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, read with Section 96, C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 passed by District Judge, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 130/95, whereby, learned District Judge has made the award dated 10.07.1995 passed by the sole Arbitrator (respondent No. 2) as Rule of Court by allowing application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act filed by respondent No. 1.2. As per brief facts of the case, contract agreement was entered into in between the appellant and respondent No. 1 on 03.06.1988. Appellant firm completed major part of the work as per agreement and a small part was left over but the Union of India (Chief Engineer) cancelled the contract unilaterally on 12.07.1994 and dispute arose in between the parties regarding the left over work and Union of India wanted to get the left over work completed at the risk and cost of the contractor.3. As per terms and c...
Buta Singh Vs. Anand Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant claimant is challenging the order dated 9.1.1998 passed in W.C. Case No. 34/90 by the Commissioner, Workmens' Compensation Act, Sriganganagar whereby the claim of the appellant was rejected.2. After hearing both the parties and perusing the pleadings so also the judgment impugned, it emerges that a claim petition was filed by the appellant stating therein that on 4.11.1988, he was working as labour on the construction work at the house of respondent along with one Shri Raghunath. The appellant fell down from the roof and suffered fracture upon his both legs and now he cannot stand for longer period and he is required to get treatment for longer period. In the claim petition filed by the appellant, notices were issued and after receiving notice by the respondent, reply was filed and all the allegations levelled by the appellant claimant were refuted and it was specifical...
Gyan Prakash and anr. Vs. Dhanraj Deo Kishan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Instant appeal has been filed under Section 104, read with Order 43 Rule 1(u), C.P.C. for challenging the order dated 30.05.1998 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Civil Appeal Decree No. 66/84 (50/97), whereby, learned lower appellate Court remanded the case under Rule 23A of Order 41, C.P.C. for trial according to law.2. As per facts of the case, appellants' father late Onkar Dutta let out a shop and nohra, situated at Nokhamandi, Bikaner to respondents on rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. Onkar Dutta died on 10.10.1981 leaving behind the appellants, eldest son Durga Dutta and widow Smt. Suraj Devi. Brother of the appellants, Durga Dutta while claiming himself to be the landlord of the aforesaid premises filed suit No. 44/82 against respondent Deo Kishan for eviction of the premises.3. Before the trial Court, the respondents denied title of Durga Dutta and pleaded that after death of Onkar Dutta they have attorned appellant Gyan Prakash a...
Dr. Premlata Purohit and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By this joint writ petition, employees of Woman & Child Development Department of Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur are seeking the following relief:(i) the petitioners may be declared as civil servants and may be granted all consequential benefits;(ii) it may further be held that the Rules of 1996 are applicable to them and they are entitled for all benefits under the Rules of 1996 by way of granting them pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension, etc. etc.;(iii) the petitioners may also be granted the benefit of selection scale and the arrears arising therefrom may also kindly be granted along interest @ 24% per annum;(iv) the State Government may be directed to provide at least two avenues of promotion so that the Government is able to get the proper services from the petitioner; and(v) any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of the petitioner, may also kindly be granted in the interest...
Nemi Chand Dinesh Chand Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2010
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against order dated 12.04.1996 passed in O.A. Case No1-340/94 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (Camp Jodhpur), whereby, the Tribunal partly decreed the claim of the appellant.2. As per facts of the case, the appellant booked one bale of cloth valuing Rs. 7650/- Ex. Jodhpur to Palanpur vide parcel way bill No. 371291 dated 03.09.1991. The value of the cloth was declared in P.V. Bill and in the forwarding note. The above consignment was however not delivered to the consignee due to negligence of the Railways. The consignee returned the bill and original P.V. Bill to the appellant.3. Thereafter, the appellant served notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act under registered A/D cover on 11.11.1991 which was received by the respondents on 13.11.1991. The Railway administration sent a cheque on 17.07.1992 for Rs. 1700/-. The said amount was not accepted by the appe...
Govind Ram and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2010
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. By the impugned orders dated 29.12.1993, the Collector, Bikaner and the order dated 22.06.1995 the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner and the Board of Revenue by order dated 12.10.1995 have concurrently held against the present petitioner and against the attestation of mutation entries in question by Gram Panchayat that the Collector could entertain the appeal and decide the same on merit notwithstanding the fact that Notification No. 5 (21)/Gr.-4/80/108 GSR 149 dated 19.11.1983 vested such jurisdiction to hear the appeal in a lower authority namely Sub- Divisional Officer.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the appeal was filed prior to coming into force of the Notification dated 19.11.1983 under the provisions of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, since the jurisdiction came to be vested in learned SDO on 19.11.1983, the appeal was incompetent before the learned Collector...
Govind Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2010
Govind Mathur, J.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Balotara, Camp Barmer, by judgment dated 13.5.2004 convicted the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months imprisonment. Instant appeal is preferred to challenge the same.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 27.6.2002 PW-6 Prakash Singh submitted a written report (Ex.P/9) at Police Station Chauhatan mentioning therein that at the border of Sanwalore an agricultural field under joint tenancy of Kishore Singh, Dhan Singh and his family is situated and that is known as 'Ravji Wala Khet'. On 27.6.2002 he and his younger brother Ramesh alongwith Raju Singh son of Mishri Singh Rajpurohit went to plow the land at 'Ravji Wala Khet' by a tractor, under instructions of his father. When Raju Singh started plowing, accused Govind Singh came there and s...
Pawan Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2010
R. S. Chauhan, J.1. Charged with the offences under Sections 498-A, 304B and 306 IPC, framed vide order dated 27-8-2009, by the Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur, the petitioners have challenged the said charge order before this Court.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 6-1-1998 the complainant, Phool Chand Gupta filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur against Pawan Kumar, Gordhan, Ku. Veena, Ku. Kamlesh, and Smt. Munni Devi for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 306 read with 120B IPC. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint for investigation to Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. After a thorough investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against the present petitioners namely, Pawan Kumar, Ku. Veena, and Smt. Munni Devi, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304B and 306 IPC. It did not file any charge sheet against Gordhan and Ku. Kamlesh. The case was committed to the court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »