Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1/43 S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.8609/2013 S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.8610/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.8609/2013 SHIVA @ SAVARAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.8610/2013 SANCHITA GUPTA @ SHILPI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF ORDER :08. 11.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Mr. Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nishant Bora, for the petitioners. Mr. Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, for the State. Mr. Manish Vyas & Kapil Purohit, for the complainant. ***** Today, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8609/2013 preferred by Shiva @ Savaram and S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8610/2013 instituted by Sanchita Gupta @ Shilpi are listed. Both the petitioners have been named as accused in case FIR No.122/2013 registered at Women Police Station, Jodhpur (West), Jodhpur corresponding to FIR No.0/13 reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1/43 S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.8609/2013 S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.8610/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.8609/2013 SHIVA @ SAVARAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.8610/2013 SANCHITA GUPTA @ SHILPI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF ORDER :08. 11.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Mr. Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nishant Bora, for the petitioners. Mr. Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, for the State. Mr. Manish Vyas & Kapil Purohit, for the complainant. ***** Today, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8609/2013 preferred by Shiva @ Savaram and S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8610/2013 instituted by Sanchita Gupta @ Shilpi are listed. Both the petitioners have been named as accused in case FIR No.122/2013 registered at Women Police Station, Jodhpur (West), Jodhpur corresponding to FIR No.0/13 reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SMT. SABANA @ CHAND BAI & ANR. VS. MOHD. TALIB ALI & ANR. (S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.362/2011) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER SMT. SABANA @ CHAND BAI & ANR. VS. MOHD. TALIB ALI & ANR. (S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.362/2011) Dated:- 30th October, 2013 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. D.N.Yadav } Ms. Purnima Yadav } for the petitioners. Mr. N.K.Bohra } for the respondent. Mr. S.D.Purohit } Mr. Amit Sharma } Mr. D.S.Beniwal } Mr. M.K.Trivedi } Mr. Anuj Kala }Counsel assisting the Court. BY THE COURT:( PER HON'BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA,J.) Reportable 1. The legal question that falls for our determination in this reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court reads as follows: Whether the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be applied retrospectively specially where the aggrieved party (wife) was divorced by the respondent (husband) prior to the Act coming into force on Oc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5182/2013 Smt. Kaushalya Devi & Anr. versus Abdul Rahoof Khan 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5182/2013 Smt. Kaushalya Devi & Anr. versus Abdul Rahoof Khan Date of Order : 24.10.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr Bhawani Singh, for petitioners Mr V.N.Kalla, for he respondent BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Division).Chittorgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Case No.37/2009, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the applications preferred by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC for seeking necessary amendments in the written statement and under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with section 151 CPC for producing a registered sale-deed dated 04.06.2004 on record. Brief facts of the case are that the S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5182/2013 Smt. Kaushalya D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B.OTHER TAX REFERENCE No.24/2004. M/s Shree Shyam Filaments versus CCE, Jaipur // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. :: ORDER :: M/s Shree Shyam Filaments versus CCE, Jaipur D.B.OTHER TAX REFERENCE No.24/2004. Date of Order :: 18th October 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Mr.Ramit Mehta ].Mr.Pradhyumn Singh ]., for the petitioner. Mr.Siddharth Tatiya for Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents..BY THE COURT: In compliance of the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by this Court in D.B.Central Excise Reference Application No.16/2003 under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act).the CustoMs.Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (the Tribunal) has referred the following questions for decision of this Court alongwith the statement of case:- (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the CEGAT was right and justified in rejecting the petitioner's refund claim as time barred.....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1].21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.7115/2013 (Saint Shri Asharam Bapu versus State of Rajasthan) Date of order : : 01.10.2013 HONBLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Mr.Ram Jethmalani, Sr.Counsel assisted by Mr.Anjani Kumar Singh and Mr.Pradeep Choduhary, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Anand Purohit, AAG & Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Pradhuman Singh and Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, counsel for the State. Mr.Manish Vyas and Mr.Kapil Purohit, counsel for the complainant. Ms.Chanchal Mishra, Investigating Officer. Reportable The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.122/2013, P.S.Mahila Thana (West) Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 342, 376, 354-A, 506, 509/34 of the IPC, Sections 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from sexual offences Act, 2012. The matt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT1 Usha Soni & ORS.versus LRs of Dev Kishan & ORS.S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.151 OF20122. Usha Soni & ORS.versus LRs of Dev Kishan & ORS.S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.150 OF2012Civil Appeals under Section 100 CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th of April 2012 *** Date of Judgment: September 24, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Reportable Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, for the appellants. Mr.Vishal Sharma for the respondents. BY THE COURT: The appellants-plaintiffs have preferred these two appeals against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th of April 2012, which was rendered in [2].Civil Appeal Decree No.02/2010 and 03/2010 by the Addl. District Judge, Merta (for short, learned fiRs.appellate Court) against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Merta (for short, learned trial Court).which was passed in two cross suits filed by the rival parties bearing No.Civil Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT1 Usha Soni & ORS.versus LRs of Dev Kishan & ORS.S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.151 OF20122. Usha Soni & ORS.versus LRs of Dev Kishan & ORS.S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.150 OF2012Civil Appeals under Section 100 CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th of April 2012 *** Date of Judgment: September 24, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Reportable Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, for the appellants. Mr.Vishal Sharma for the respondents. BY THE COURT: The appellants-plaintiffs have preferred these two appeals against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th of April 2012, which was rendered in [2].Civil Appeal Decree No.02/2010 and 03/2010 by the Addl. District Judge, Merta (for short, learned fiRs.appellate Court) against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Merta (for short, learned trial Court).which was passed in two cross suits filed by the rival parties bearing No.Civil Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 177/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 177/2010 Smt. Champa & Ors. versus Rooplal Date of Order:13. h September, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Sajjan Singh with Mr. Manish Rajpurohit, for the petitioners. Dr. Javed Moyal with Mr. Mohsin Dhera, for the respondent. REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:-(Oral) (Per Jain, J.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3rd June, 2009 passed by Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 201/2003, whereby application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by present petitioners was partly allowed. The application of petitioner no.1 Smt. Champa wife of Rooplal was dismissed. Application filed by petitioners no. 1 and 2 namely Kumari Minal and Master Jatin was allowed and respondent Rooplal was directed to pay a sum of Rs.750/- per month to Kumari Minal and Rs. 750/- per mont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
-1- SB Civil Writ Petition No.442/2011 Mahendra Singh Gehlot v. Rajendra Kumar Soni & Ors. Date of Order ::11. h September, 2013 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. K.S.Rathore, for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Raj Singhvi, for the respondent. .... By judgment dated 24.2.2010 learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the judgment dated 3.11.2007 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original Application No.99/2006. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner preferred an Original Application before Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur with assertion that respondent is tenant at the shop situated at Sojati Gate, Jodhpur and is making making payment of rent in a tune of Rs.1155/- per month. The rented premises is required being having reasonable and bonafide necessity as the petitioner desires to have an office for starting property dealing business. It was furt...
Tag this Judgment!