Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN398
Jagat Narain, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan (defendant No. 2) against a decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 25-9-58 decreeing a suit instituted against it and against the Union of India (defendant No. 1) by the Associated Stone Industries Kota (hereinafter referred to as the Company).2. The relevant facts are that the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Kota entered into an agreement Ex. A on 2-5- 45 with the Company for quarrying Kachcha stone from the Tehsils of Ramganj Mandi and Chochat. Monopoly rights for quarrying Kachcha stone in these two tehsils were granted to the Company for a period of 15 years from 1-10- 44. The terms and conditions contained in Clause 18(1) of the agreement ran as under:In consideration of the concessions and privileges granted by the Grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super tax and excess profits tax, the Grantee convenant to pay to the Grantor royalty on the stone excavated at the rate of rupee one per 100 sq. ft., subjected to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj128
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan (defendant No. 2) against a decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 25-9-58 decreeing a suit instituted against it and against the Union of India (defendant No. 1) by the Associated Stone Industries Kota (hereinafter referred to as the Company). 2. The relevant facts are that the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Kota entered into an agreement Ex. A on 2-5-45 with the Company for quarrying Kachcha stone from the Tehsils of Ramganj Mandi and Chechat. Monopoly rights for quarrying Kachcha stone in these two tehsils were granted to the Company for a period of 15 years from 1-10-44- The terms and conditions contained in Clause 18 (i) of the agreement ran as under :-- 'In consideration of the concessions and privileges granted by the Grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super-tax and excess profits tax, the Grantee covenant to pay to the Grantor royalty on the stone excavated at the rate of rupee one per 100 sq. ft., subject t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj6
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment and decree of Bhandari J, sitting single, confirming in second appeal the decision of the District Judge, Jaipur. Leave to appeal has been granted by the learned Judge.2. The appeal relates to a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, The Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd., for recovery of Rs. 3539/7/- from the defendant Municipal Committee, which is the appellant here. The plaintiff alleged that the Municipal Committee Madanganj had borrowed on 9-7-1947 a sum of Rs, 3,000/- and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, after the loan had been duly sanctioned by the Mahkama Khas of the then Kishangarh State. Later the Municipal Committee Madanganj merged in the Municipal Committee Kishangarh and plaintiff averred that, by virtue of the merger, the defendant became liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest.The defendant resisted the claim and its liability to pay the amount; but admitted that in any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj128; I(2006)DMC667; RLW2006(1)Raj612; 2006(1)WLC648
V.K. Bali, J. 1. Sudarshan Bhatia, born and brought up in the State of Rajas-than, but stated to be a Canadian citizen, died on 21.4.1989 in Germany leaving behind considerable movable and immovable properties. Poonam Bhati his wife and Smita Bhatia, minor daughters, said to have been born out of the wedlock of Sudarshan Bhatia and Poonam Bhatia, successfully sought succession certificate with regard to the movable properties of deceased Sudarshan Bhatia, details whereof have been given in the application under Section 372 of the Indian succession Act itself as the same was allowed vide orders dated 6.12.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Whereas Surendra Bhatia brother of Sudarshan Bhatia resisted grant of succession certificate to Poonam Bhati and her daughter Smita on the basis of Will dated 17.4.1989 (Ex.A.l) said to have been executed by Sudarshan Bhati, his sister resisted the same on the ground that movable properties owned by Sudarshan Bhatia were made from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2517
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Shiv Narain, against the order dated September 18, 2007 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2007 whereby the accused respondents 2 and 3 were acquitted from the charges for the offence under Sections 498A & 304B IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner's daughter namely Vandana @ Gudiya was solemnized with Avdesh Mishra, who is accused respondent No. 2 on January 30, 2005. The petitioner had given dowry articles to the accused respondents to the best of his financial capacity but they were not satisfied with the same and they used to torture his daughter for not bringing more dowry i.e. Rs. 50;000 cash or motorcycle. The daughter of the petitioner was given beatings by the accused respondents and the they used to threat her that they would not keep her in the matrimonial home, until their demands were satisfied. After ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(4)Raj2864
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Dinesh, Kamlesh and Ramwati, the appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City District Karauli, who vide judgment dated November 29, 2002 convicted each of them under Section 304B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.2. The informant Ashok Kumar (Pw. 10) submitted a written report at Police Station Hindaun City on October 29, 1994 with the averments that his sister Beena (since deceased) was married to appellant Dinesh on November 25, 1987. Soon after the marriage the appellants started harassing Beena in connection with the demand of dowry and ultimately murdered her on October 27, 1994. It also appears from record that prior to filing of the report by Ashok Kumar, proceedings under Section 174 CrPC were instituted on the report lodged by appellant Dinesh on October 28, 1994. After usual investigation the police arrived at the conclusion that it was dowry death and charg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj92
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Naval Singh and Bhagwan Singh, appellants herein, along with co-accused Smt. Prem Bai, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Dholpur, who vide judgment dated October 20, 2003 while acquitting co-accused Prem Bai, convicted and sentenced the appellants as unden-Under Section 498A IPC:Both to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days imprisonment.Under Section 304B IPC:Both to suffer imprisonment for ten years.Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid finding instant appeals have been preferred.2. It is the prosecution case that on December 7, 2000 the informant Suraj Pal (PW. 15) submitted a written report (Ex. P-7) to SHO Police Station Kolari in connection with the death of his married daughter Mangli in abnormal circumstances on December 6, 2000. It was stated in the report that Mangli was married to Naval Singh on April 28,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2095
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Daulat Ram, appellant herein, was put to trial on the allegations of committing 'dowry death' of his wife before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk, who vide judgment dated November 7, 2003 convicted and sentenced him as under:Under Section 304B IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 498A IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on March 7, 2003 at 1.30 PM informant Prakash Khatri (Pw.9) submitted a written report (Ex.P-14) at police station Deoli District Tonk to the effect that his sister Parmeshwari, who married to Daulat Kumar on June 29, 2001, was subjected to harassment in connection with demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws. In the mornin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(3)WLC384; 2001(2)WLN311
ORDERMadan, J.1. Jaipur DRT Bar Association (petitioner) through its Secretary Shri Rajendra Sharma Advocate espousing the cause of Advocates practising before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short 'DRT'), Jaipur, has filed this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation, seeking writ, order or direction to-(1) quash the office order dated 18th April, 2000 (Annex.2) issued by the Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'DRAT'), Bombay, including the direction issued by the Chairperson of the DRAT to the Presiding Officer of the DRT Jaipur; (2) restrain the Presiding Officer of the DRT Jaipur for transferring the Original & Misc. Applications and the Execution Proceedings pending before the DRT Jaipur to the DRT Chandigarh pursuant to the directions of the DRAT Bombay or office order dated 18th April, 2000 (Annex.2); and (3) direct the Presiding Officer of the DRT Jaipur to dispose of the cases in accordance with law.(2). An interim relief was also sought for staying...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj140
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dtd. 26.5.2008 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the defendant filed under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the C.P.C. seeking to produce on record certain additional documents in an eviction matter.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for seeking eviction of the suit shop in question on the ground of personal and bonafide necessary of the landlord. After the evidence of the plaintiff-defendant was complete on 17.11.2006 and the case was fixed for final arguments on 8.12.2006 after taking several opportunities for arguing the case, the defendant filed the aforesaid application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the C.P.C. and the said defendant wanted to produce the documents viz. application for registration under the Sales Tax Law by one M/s. Arihant Metals, proprietorship concern of father of the plaintiff, which was purportedly signed as Manager by t...
Tag this Judgment!