Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Vishal Kaushik, challenging order dated 26.07.2013, whereby seven applications filed by him, respectively on 15.06.2013(Annesure-3), 21.06.2013(Annexure-4 and 5); 28.06.2013(Annexure-7); 19.07.2013(Annexure-8, 9 and 10), were dismissed by Family Court, Ajmer(for short `the Family Court'). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Haridwar(Uttarkhand) in September, 2008. In that application, the petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 2-wife(for short `respondent-wife`) caused mental cruelty to him by different means, especially because she had extra marital affairs with a person named Kapil Rana, with whom she even had physical relationship. She used to constantly meet him at various places including at the flat of said Kapil Rana and petitioner's flat. Respondent-wife contested the divorce petition by filing wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
{1} DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL- 81/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.81/2005 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3070/2003 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Vs. DR. KANTESH KHETANI & ORS. DATE :: MARCH31t, 2015 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUNIL AMBWANI HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Mr. K.L. Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rishabh Tayal, for the appellants. Mr. Ravindra Singh with Mr. Umesh Sharma, for the respondents. ***** REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:(PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 1 This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.12.2004, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3070/2003- Dr. Kantesh Khetani & 20 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., by which the writ petition was allowed, to that extent, and in the manner, that the petitioners who were doing PG DNB Course of three years, were held entitled to receive stipend for all three years. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical & Health Depar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR **** :: ORDER :: (1) Madan Dan Arha & Anr. versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd & Ors (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.747/2014) (2) Chetan Trivedi & ORS.versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd & Ors (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.767/2014) Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India DATE OF ORDER:: March 28, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.Sandeep Shah, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Manoj Bhandari, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Both these petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order. For disposal of both the petitions, apposite facts pleaded by the respective parties in S.B.Civil Writ [2].Petition No.747/2014 are narrated for convenience hereinafter. The petitioners of this writ petition are the agriculturists having agricultural land situated in KhaSr.No.761 and 771 adjacent to each other in village Peshua, Te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.446/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : JUDGMENT: Roop Lal & ORS.versus The State of Raj. "D.B.Criminal Appeal No.446 of 2005 under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 07.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track).No.3, Udaipur Camp at Salumber in Sessions Case No.93/2004. Date of Judgment ::: 21st January 2014 Present Hon'ble Mr.Justice Govind Mathur Hon'ble Mr.Justice Banwari Lal Sharma Mr.Mahesh Bora, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Nishant Bora, for the appellants. Mr.K.R.Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor. Mr.Mohammed Aslam for Mr.V.N.Kalla, for the complainant. By the Court:[per Hon'ble Sharma,J.].The accused-appellants have preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track).No.3, Udaipur camp at Salumber in Sessions Case No.93/2004, whereby they have been convicted for the offences...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 SHREE CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN DTD. 11.10.20111/105IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 Shree Cement Ltd. V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Judgment : 11th October 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr.S.Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bapna, Advocate General and Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Mathur, Lokesh Mathur, Mr.Sunil Beniwal, for the respondents. BY THE COURT -1. How negative executive interventions, lack of political will and wisdom can cause laggard, sluggish and distorted industrial growth in a State, though rich in minerals, lime stone in present case in the State of Rajasthan and sufferer is a cement manufacturing unit, will be borne out from what follows in this case. 2. Another caveat on legislative practices, particularly subordinate legislation and executive policy decisions and the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010 & 11 other connected writ petitions ( See Schedule) Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors. Judgment dt: 11/10/20111/53IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Jodhpur Development Authority, vs. Jodhpur State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010 & 11 other connected writ petitions ( See Schedule) DATE OF : PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. M.C.Bhoot, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Surendra Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: 1. The petitioner, Jodhpur Development Authority, through its 11th October, 2011Commissioner, has approached this Court by way of present batch of writ petitions, inter alia, claiming the quashing of judgment and order dated 26/10/2009 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jodhpur on a complaint filed under Section 12 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1]. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER M/s. K.B. Cooperative Art Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6213/2014 Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Date of Order: October 14, 2014. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. Vineet Dave, for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Jain, for respondents No.2 & 3. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for respondent No.4 ***** Reportable BY THE COURT: This petition portrays a battle royal for winning a contract of shopping emporia for Palace on Wheels and Royal Rajasthan on Wheels for the season 2014-15 for Jaisalmer. In this fierce legal battle, two competitors, i.e. petitioner and the fourth respondent, are pitted against each other. [2]. Although matter comes up on an application of the respondents for vacation/modification of the ad-interim stay order but with the consent of rival parties it is heard finally at this stage. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that second respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9161/2013 Praveen Kumbhat & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. ::: S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2108/2014 Praveen Kumbhat & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order ::7. h December 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.K.C.Samdariya for the petitioners Mr.Bharat Dutt Sharma, Dy.Govt.Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3 Mr.L.K.Purohit for respondent No.2. BY THE COURT: In both these writ petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.9161/2013 for seeking directions against the respondents to make allotment of shops to the Members of Jodhpur Goods Transport Association, Jodhpur (for short 'the Association') who have applied for allotment of shops pursuant to notification/ advertisement dated 13.12.2006 issued by the second respondent. The facts necessary and german...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9161/2013 Praveen Kumbhat & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. ::: S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2108/2014 Praveen Kumbhat & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order ::7. h December 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.K.C.Samdariya for the petitioners Mr.Bharat Dutt Sharma, Dy.Govt.Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3 Mr.L.K.Purohit for respondent No.2. BY THE COURT: In both these writ petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.9161/2013 for seeking directions against the respondents to make allotment of shops to the Members of Jodhpur Goods Transport Association, Jodhpur (for short 'the Association') who have applied for allotment of shops pursuant to notification/ advertisement dated 13.12.2006 issued by the second respondent. The facts necessary and german...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.830/2012. Narayan Singh versus Anil Kumar Shishodia (Alongwith one connected matter) // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.:: JUDGMENT :: Narayan Singh versus Anil Kumar Shishodia D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.830/2012.Chittorgarh Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank LTD.versus Anil Kumar Shishodia D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.1010/2012.Date of Judgment :: 31st October 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Dr. P.S.Bhati ].Mr.Ravindra Singh ]., for the appellant - Narayan Singh. Mr.P.R.Mehta, for the appellantChittorgarh Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited. Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Manish Shishodia ].Mr.Hemant Dutt ]., for the respondent Anil Kumar Shishodia BY THE COURT: These two intra-court appeals, being directed against the same order dated 19.09.2012, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.11825/2010, have been considered together; and ar...
Tag this Judgment!