Rajasthan Court July 2011 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.
Prabhu Sharan and Others Vs. Ganesh Ram and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the defendant-petitioners have impugned the order dated 18.10.2008, whereby Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kotputli, District Jaipur allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 under Order 9 Rule IX CPC as also the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and restored the suit at its original number, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.9.2005 for non appearance, non prosecution and non production of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent no.1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order. 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases has consistently held that the High Court should exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution only in the event when the impugned orders are found to be perverse, contrary to material and they result in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that th...
Shabbir Khan Vs. the State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that allegation against petitioner is culpably false. It has been alleged that he exploited the prosecutrix and had been doing so at the gun point for last four years. The first information report has been registered on 27.07.2010 and the alleged incident is said to be of 24.07.2010. The date of birth of petitioner, according to school certificate, is 20.08.1994. The age on the date of incident he was less than 16 years. In fact the actual dispute was between the petitioner and Javed, son of prosecutrix, and that has been made out the false case. The prosecutrix is aged 42 years and mother of four children. The eldest daughter of the prosecutrix is elder than the petitioner and Javed, son of prosecutrix, is also more than 11 years. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4...
Shafiq at Shafiq Mohommad Vs. the State of Rajasthan Through Public Pr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that main allegation is against Smt. Bano wife of petitioner, from whose possession contraband 6 kilogram 'ganja' was recovered and she has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 13.07.2010 in Bail Application No.6434/2010. Prescribed commercial quantity of the contraband under the Act is 20 kilogram. Another accused Niranjan Durga has also been enlarged on bail by order dated 19.07.2010 in Bail Application No.6731/2010. Petitioner is in jail for last about three months. This is the first offence alleged against petitioner and there is no other case ever registered against him. Challan has already been filed. Trial may take a long. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and withou...
Shyam Manohar Sharma Vs. the Manager Rsrtc and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The intra court appeal has been preferred calling in question the legality of the order dated 10-9-2008, passed by Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5130/2006, affirming the award dated 20-5-2006, passed by Judge, Labour Court, Kota in LCR No.2/1996. 3. The appellant was appointed as Conductor on daily wage basis initially on 19-6-1983. When he was found carrying seven passengers without ticket, his services were terminated. However, on 21-5-1984, he was again appointed on the post of Conductor on daily wage basis, with the condition that in case the appellant is found carrying passengers without ticket, his services would be terminated without holding any enquiry. On 12-2-1986, on the route of Jhalawar to Binganj, the appellant was found carrying fourteen passengers without ticket. Therefore, his services were terminated on 13-2-1986. The appellant assailed his termination order before the Labour Court. Before the Labour court, the e...
Shamim Bano and Anrr Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that challan in present case has been filed on 27.03.2011 against petitioners with aid of Section 299 of Cr.P.C. whereas all throughout they have been residing in their native village and have not gone into hiding. All other accused except Ayub, have been granted benefit of bail. All accused are members of the same family and they have been falsely implicated only because complainant named all the members of their family. This is a case of over/false implication. There is no allegation against present petitioners of causing injury on the person of deceased. The incident took place at the spur of moment between two families and there was free fight and cross-cases were registered. Allegation against present petitioners, as is evident from statement of eye wi...
Ram Niwas Vs. Smt. Rampyari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of disputed piece of land i.e. 'Chabutari', which was decreed by the trial Court and decree of the trial Court has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court while dismissing first appeal of defendant. Hence, defendant has preferred this second appeal. 3. Controversial issues involved in the present case are relating to question of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below, which cannot be interferred with by this Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC. 4. A three-Judges-Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bholaram vs. Ameerchand- (1981) 2 SCC 414, considered the effect of amendment made in Section 100 of the CPC in 1976, and held as under: “......The High Court, however, seems to have justified its interference in second appeal mainly on the ground that the judgments of the courts below were perverse and were given in utter disr...
Smt. Madhu Kalra Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dt.06.04.2009 inflicting penalty after being held guilty under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulation,1960. 2. It has come on record and evident from the Award Annx.1 that petitioner was initially employed as Assistant. However, she was charge-sheeted on 31.01.2000 regarding her absence from duty and after held guilty penalty was inflicted. However, when the matter came up before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal by way of reference, award was passed on 19.12.2003 and the order inflicting penalty of removal from service w.e.f.23.12.2000 was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, pursuant to which she was reinstated, as alleged, on 18.07.2006. However, the petitioner thereafter as alleged submitted application seeking voluntary retirement on 08.01.2008 and after the expiry of three months when no order was passed by the respondent on the applicat...
Suraj Bhan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. The aforementioned writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner calling in question the legality of the order dated 10-11-2010, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur bench, Jaipur (`the Tribunal' for short) in Original Application No.160/2006, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application and affirmed the order dated 31-3-2004, whereby the petitioner was punished by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority affirmed the same. 2.Succinctly stated the necessary facts for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was serving as Gramin Dak Sewa, Branch Post Master (`GDSBPM' for short), Kanchanpur. It is alleged that while he was working as GDSBPM at Kanchanpur, on 10-1-2003, he accepted an amount of Rs.1300/- and entered the same in Pass-book of RD A/c No.221446. But he did not account for the above amount in the Government record. Thus, he has misappropriated the government money amounting to Rs.1300/-. It has been alleged that by such ...
Smt. Monalika Mathur Vs. Family Court, and Another.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Applicant has filed this transfer application for transferring Divorce Petition No. 450/2010 pending between the parties in Family Court No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur to Family Court at Ajmer. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has instituted two petitions; first under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and second under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Respondent No. 2 and in both the cases, Respondent No. 2 is appearing at Ajmer, whereas a divorce petition has been instituted against the applicant by Repsondent No. 2 at Jaipur. He submitted that since Respondent No. 2 is already attending two cases at Ajmer, therefore, it will be appropriate that the case pending in Family Court No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur may also be transferred to Family Court at Ajmer, so all the cases may be consolidated and dispose off simultaneously. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 does not dispute that two cases ...
Harish Chand Gupta Vs. Prahalad Sharma(Deceased) Through His Legal Hei ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction in respect of rented premise on the ground of default in making payment of rent, personal bonafide necessity, material alteration and sub-letting. Trial court decreed the suit on the ground of sub-letting. The finding of trial court in respect of Issue No. 2 i.e. sub-letting has been affirmed by the first appellate court, while dismissing first appeal preferred by Defendant No. 1, Harish Chand Gupta. Hence, Defendant No. 1 has preferred this second appeal. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that a portion of rented premise has been sub-let to Defendant No. 2 and exclusive possession of the same has been given. Defendant No. 2 is doing his business in the said portion in the name of Vikram Gas Welding, after putting his board on the shop. Trial court as well as first appellate court both have considered the oral and documentary evidence in detail and have recorded a finding in respect of Issue No. 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »