Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.237/2012 Ratan Lal vs. Gopal Date of Judgment ::17. 01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. S. Saruparia, for the appellants. Mr. Narendra Thanvi, for the respondent. ---- BY THE COURT: REPORTABLE This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 25.03.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nathdwara decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for possession of shop, arrears of rent and mesne profit and appellate judgment and decree dated 27.04.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Nathdwara, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant was rejected. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff Gopal son of Fateh Lal Arora filed a suit, inter alia, claiming that the shop in question was on rent with the defendant at Rs.700/- per month; as the said shop was required by him, he had issued notice to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.54/2009 LRs of Abdul Majid versus Pukhraj and ORS.Date of Judgment :: 20.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.Sukesh Bhati, for the appellants. Mr.R.R.Nagori, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, for the respondents. ---- BY THE COURT: This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 23.08.1995 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division).Jodhpur City, Jodhpur ('the trial court') as upheld by the appellate decree dated 16.10.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jodhpur ('the appellate court').The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the suit was filed in the year 1974 by Shankar Lal, father the respondents-plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction against Abdul Majid, father of the appellants, inter alia, with the averments that the land in question was sold by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur to 2 the plaitniff on 10.04...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Pushkar Lal versus State of Rajasthan D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.936/2004 against the judgment dated 17.8.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track).Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.27/04. Date of Judgment :: 22.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN Mr.Vineet Jain & Mr.Gaurav Singh, for the appellant Mr.K.R.Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor ..BY THE COURT : By judgment dated 17.8.2004 the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track).Chittorgarh convicted the accused appellant Pushkar Lal for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and further to undergo two months simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.The sentence to undergo three yeaRs.rigorous imprisonment with a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1074/2004 Vijay Pratap & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan Date of Judgment :: 29.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN Mr.Dhirendra Singh for the appellants Mr.K.R.Bishnoi Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE MATHUR,J.).Being aggrieved by the conviction recorded for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC and the sentence awarded under the judgment dated 13.10.2004 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur, this appeal is preferred. The facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal are that on 14.05.2003, a written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted by Mr.Ganesh Lal (P.W.1) at police station, Basni, Jodhpur with assertion that his younger brother Murlidhar was running a Pan shop, wherefrom he came to home at 09.00 p.m.on 13.05.2003. He then proceeded to attend a marriage, [2].but did not return to home in night....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Pyarelal & Anr. versus State of Rajasthan D.B.Criminal Appeal No.328/2006 against the judgment dated 28.2.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No.35/2004. Date of Judgment :: 31st January, 2014 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN Mr.Manish Dadhich].Mr.M.K.Garg ].for the appellants. Mr.K.R.Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor, for the State...BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MATHUR,J.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner, by judgment dated 28.2.2006, convicted accused Pyarelal for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and accused Fateh Chand for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Both the accused were sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- each and further to undergo one month's additional imprisonment in the event of default in payment o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B.CIVIL FIRs.APEAL NO.57/1986 Rameshwar Lal and ORS.versus Jai Prakash and ORS.Date of Judgment :: 04.02.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.Manish Shishodia, for the appellants. Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the respondents. ----- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.3.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-defendant No.1 was decreed; sale deed dated 15.6.1974 to the extent of plaintiff No.1's share was cancelled on payment of Rs.13,500/- by the plaintiff No.1 to defendants No.1 to 3 within a period of two months; plaintiffs were held not entitled to possession of the suit house from the defendants-appellants; suit filed by the plaintiff No.2 for cancellation of sale deed was held pre-mature and the plaintiff No.1 was held entitled to costs from the defendant No.4. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.152/2013 Smt. Saroj & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Narain Mathur & Anr. Date of Judgment ::07. h February, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. H.R. Soni, for the appellants. Mr. M.D. Boob ) Mr. Mahesh Joshi ), for the respondents. ---- BY THE COURT: REPORTABLE This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 22.01.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and permanent injunction has been dismissed and order dated 22.02.2013 passed by said Court, whereby, the judgment dated 22.01.2013 was reviewed and the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1 for possession, which was originally dismissed, has been decreed. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the appellants- plaintiffs filed a suit, inter alia, with the averments that they are legal representatives of late Kailash Narayan Mathur (K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Haji Menu versus Union of India & ORS.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.210/2012 Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: February 7, 2014. PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA, J. Mr.K.K.Shah, for the petitioner. Mr.Mohit Vyas for Mr.Sanjeet Purohit for respondent No.2. None present for respondent No.3. *** BY THE COURT: Petitioner Haji Menu, resident of Jaisalmer, has preferred this writ petition seeking directions against the respondents for issuance of passport without any further delay. The apposite facts for the purpose of this writ petition are that the petitioner applied for issuance of passport under the Passports Act, 1967 (for short, Act of 1967) and the requisite application form No.186362 was submitted on 5th May 2006. Acknowledging the receipt of [2].the form of the petitioner, respondent No.2 assigned the same, File Reference No.A046267-2006 dated 7th of June 2006. On receipt ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1].14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.2nd BAIL APPLICATION NO.10115/2013 (Saint Shri Asharam Bapu versus State of Rajasthan) Date of order :: 10th February, 2014 HONBLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Mr.Ram Jethmalani, Mr.C.V.Nagesh, Mr.J.S.Choudhary, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Anjani Kumar Singh, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, and Mr.Pradeep Choduhary, counsel for the petitioner. Dr.Pushpendra Singh Bhati & Mr.Rajesh Panwar, Additional Advocates General along with Mr.Pradhuman Singh, Mr.Chandra Sen Rathore and Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, counsel for the State. Mr.P.C.Solanki & Mr.P.K.Verma, counsel for the complainant. Ms.Mukta Pareek & Mr.Ramdev, I.O.present in person. Reportable This is second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.The petitioner is seeking bail in Session Case No.152/2013 arising out of FIR No.122/2013, P.S.Mahila Thana (West) Jodhpur and 0/2013, P.S.Kamla Market Delhi, pending trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur for offence und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4658/2000 L/D Clerk Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. Order dt:13. 02/2014 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4658/2000 L/D Clerk Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :::13. h February 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Appearance: Mr. S.K. Nanda, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur with Mr. Anirudh Purohit, for the respondents. -- BY THE COURT:1. On the question of jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal, both the learned counsel for the parties though admit that the present petitioner, is covered by the provisions of Army Act, 1950, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Nanda, submitted that since the issue involved in the present case does not fall within the definition of 'Service Matters' as defined under Section 3 (o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2007') as it the impugned order passed i...
Tag this Judgment!