Rajasthan Court May 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.
Harsh Vardhan Singh Vs. Ranveer Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2010
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. The applicant, M/s. Suncity Projects Private Limited, has filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., for being impleaded as party respondent in the present appeal.2. It is the case of the applicant that the plaintiff had filed a civil suit for partition of the property against the defendants. However, vide judgment dated 20-5-2003, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this first appeal was filed by the appellant plaintiff in the year 2003 itself. From 2003 till 2008, this Court did not grant any stay in favour of the appellant. During this period, the defendant No. 1, Ranveer Singh, sold part of the property to Ms/. Harihar Buildtech Private Limited. The applicant, M/s. Suncity Projects Private Limited, is a sister concern of M/s. Harihar Buildtech Private Limited. Since part of the property was bought by M/s. Harihar Buildtech Private Limited, it transferred the land to the applicant for d...
Rajendra Kr. Mishra and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2010
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Since all these petitions involve common question, hence at joint request, were common question, hence at joint request, were heard together and are being disposed of by present order.2. Grievance of the petitioners is that that petitioners on being qualified were appointed as Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 but their applications for renewal of certificates of practice as Notary have been rejected without assigning reasons by a Non-speaking orders.3. Counsel jointly submit that the issue raised in instant petitions has been examined in two separate bunch of petitions (1) by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dt. 18/12/2009 in Smt. Asha Bhansali and Ors. v. State (CWP-15119/2009 & 61 Cognate Cases) and (2) at principal seat Jodhpur vide judgment dt. 22/02/2010 (Per Hon. Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J.) in Tarun Mehta and Ors. v. State (CWP-10569/2009 & 78 Cognate Cases) - operative part whereof runs ad infra:In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same ar...
Smt. Gopali Sarkar Vs. Himanshi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, the petitioner has approached this Court.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 21.04.2008, the respondent-plaintiff, Smt. Himanshi, filed a suit through her next friend and natural guardian, Smt. Sudha Mehta, for rendition of account, for declaration of sale-deed dated 16.12.1995 and 02.03.1996 as voidable, and for compensation. In her plaint, she claimed that although she also had a share in the property in dispute, the defendant No. 1, Sh. Pradeep Sen, defendant No. 2, Sujata Das, and defendant No. 3, Smt. Gopali Sarkar (the petitioner before this Court), by executing the aforesaid two sale deeds, had sold the undivided, immovable property of Sh. Dhruvnath Sen to defendant No. 4, M/s Bohra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and defendant No. 5, M/s Anukampa ...
Mothu Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2010
Govind Mathur, J.1. This appeal is preferred to assail validity correctness and propriety of the judgment and order dated 19.1.2005, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar District - Hanumangarh convicting accused Mothu Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and accused appellant Jagga Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Both the accused as a consequent to the conviction recorded as aforesaid are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life term with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and further to undergo three years additional imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. The accused Jagga Singh by the same judgment and order is also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and further to undergo three months additional imprisonment in the event of default in making payment of fine.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that o...
Bhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2010
Govind Mathur, J.1. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh, by the judgment and order dated 21.3.2002 convicted the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life term with fine of Rs. 500/- and further to undergo 1 year's rigorous imprisonment in the event of failure to pay the fine.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that PW-6 Gangaram on 6.10.2002 submitted a report at police station' Sardarshahar with insertion that on 5.10.2002, at about 1.00 pm Kesra Ram and Bhanwar Lal both were quarreling and abusing each other on the road near a water tank. Bhanwar Lal was armed with a Lathi and during the course of quarrel he gave a blow from that to Kesra Ram who consequently fell down and became unconscious. Smt. Udi wife of Kesra Ram and Bhera Ram, his son, immediately carried Kesra Ram to house and then one Compounder was called for preliminary treatment. Due to non- availability of vehicle Kesra Ram coul...
idan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2010
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 30.06.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4257/2006, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- appellant Idan Singh s/o Kalyan Singh joined Border Security Force on 03.05.1986 on the post of Driver. Later on, an application was filed by him under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969 for retirement. Accordingly, he was discharged from service in terms of circular dated 27.12.1995 under communication dated 11.06.1997. Application for retirement of the appellant Idan Singh was accepted with effect from 31.07.1997. As per his tenure, appellant Idan Singh worked in the BSF for 11 years 2 months and 28 days. In the communication dated 11.06.1997, it was observed that employee will be entitled for all pensionary benefits according to rules as per his entitlement.3. After passing or...
Hastimal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2010
C.M. Totla, J.1. Appellant is convicted for the offence of Section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine Rs. 500/-, hence is this appeal.2. Alleged incident and sequence of events, according to prosecution, is that on July 9, 2002, about 7-8 O'clock morning, deceased Smt. Bhagu W/o. appellant, making phone call from Sumerpur to Chamunderi told her first cousin brother Dhan Raj PW 2 to hurriedly take her from there, so PW 2, with his father PW 6, uncle PW 5 and PW 6, in a jeep, went and arrived at about 9.30 a.m. to house of Bhagu at Sumerpur - there, at house not was she and her in-laws did not telling any about her, but some persons, standing out of house, informed that she is taken to Mahveer hospital, so they went to hospital, than came to know about death of Bhagu.3. Dhan Raj PW 2 submitted written report Ex.P7 - scribed by PW 13 - on same day at fourteen hours at police station, stating that her cousin sister Smt. Bhagu d/o. Shri Chaupa Ram Ji, was married per Hindu rit...
Sharwan Kumar and ors. Vs. Rpsc and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2010
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In all the above writ petitions, common prayer has been made by the petitioners that action of the respondents in adopting scaling system for assessment in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2008 for recruitment to Rajasthan Judicial Service may be declared illegal and unconstitutional and the same may be quashed and set aside. Further, it is prayed that Rajasthan Public Service Commission may be directed to issue fresh merit list on the basis of raw marks obtained by the candidates without applying the formula of scaling. It is also prayed that all actions undertaken during the pendency of the writ petitions to the detriment of the petitioners may be declared illegal and be set aside and, in case appointments are issued to persons having marks lower than the actual raw marks secured by the petitioner under his category, then, the said appointments may be declared illegal and/or the petitioner may be adequately compensated by being declared selecte...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Uka and ors.,
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2010
Govind Mathur, J.1. These appeals are before us being referred by a Division Bench of this Court for reconsideration of the judgment given in Asuram v. Tehsildar, Sanchore reported in AIR 2000 Rajasthan 345.2. To understand the issue under consideration, it may be useful to notice certain relevant statutes and the facts associated.THE RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 19553. On 30.3.1949, the State of Rajasthan was formed on integration of several independent Princely States and Chief-ships with varying levels of political, economic and social developments. At the time of formation of State, the Jagirdari system was prevailing over a huge part of available agricultural land and the tenants were not having any security of tenure and fairness of rent. The agriculture being a key factor of economic and national reconstruction, the newly formed State felt it necessary to introduce and accelerate the process of land reforms, thus, on 10.10.1955 a bill to enact the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was place...
Bhanwar Singh Vs. Jvvnl
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2010
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsels.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant & release of full wages, increments and other ancillary benefits for the period of suspension between 17/20th August, 1999 to 15/11/2002 and also consequential benefits after removal of suspension as he was acquitted of the criminal charges by the competent court vide judgment dated 4/9/2002 for the alleged offences under Section 420, 468 & 494 IPC.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Narpat Singh relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the cast of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. 1999 SCC (L&S;) 810 and of this Court in the case of Mangal Chand Sain v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (5) WLC 219 and submitted that since the petitioner was acquitted of the alleged offences in the absence of any evidence against him by the competent court and which judgment has become final, therefore, non-payment of service benefits on the same charges cannot be sustained ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »