Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 177/2012. Lalit Shanker Vs. Smt. Sunder Bai // 1 // 19 D.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 177/2012. Lalit Shanker Vs. Smt. Sunder Bai .. Date of Order ::11. h September 2013. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Prabhat Ojha, for the petitioner. Mr. Anuj Sahlot, for the non-petitioner. BY THE COURT: (per Dinesh Maheshwari, J.) Preliminary This criminal revision petition, directed against the order dated 20.01.2012, as passed by the Family Court, Udaipur on an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code/Cr.P.C.), was filed by the petitioner, and was dealt with by the office, as a matter to be laid before a Single Judge of this Court. However, this petition has been placed before the Division Bench in view of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 17.07.2013 holding that this matter is required to be registered as DB Petition for Family Courts and Matr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5144/2013 Jagdish Prasad and anr. V/s Prithviraj and anr. Order dt:10. 9/2013 1/12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5144/2013 Jagdish Prasad and anr. V/s Prithviraj and anr.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4977/2013 Girditta Ram and anr. V/s Satish Chandra 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4985/2013 Shri Chand V/s Prithviraj and anr.4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5143/2013 Jagdish Prasad and anr. V/s Prithviraj and anr.5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5778/2013 Shri Chand V/s Prithviraj and anr. Date of Order :::10. h September, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.R.R.Nagori, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, for the petitioners. Mr.S.L.Jain, for the respondents. -- BY THE COURT:1. The defendants lessees have challenged the impugned orders dtd.6.4.2013 of the learned trial Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Suratgarh, Dist. Sri Ganganagar in the eviction suits filed by the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT (1) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.212/2001 Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Pankaj (2) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.776/1999 Pankaj Bhatnagar Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi & Anr. Appeals under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 22, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.D. Boob, for the appellant-wife. Mr. Shatish Sharma, for the respondent-husband. *** Reportable BY THE COURT: These two appeals under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') are directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th of May 1998 under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and order dated 20.08.1999 under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1955 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner, involving matrimonial dispute between the rival parties and therefore both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. [2] Apposite facts necessary for both th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT (1) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.212/2001 Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Pankaj (2) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.776/1999 Pankaj Bhatnagar Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi & Anr. Appeals under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 22, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.D. Boob, for the appellant-wife. Mr. Shatish Sharma, for the respondent-husband. *** Reportable BY THE COURT: These two appeals under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') are directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th of May 1998 under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and order dated 20.08.1999 under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1955 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner, involving matrimonial dispute between the rival parties and therefore both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. [2] Apposite facts necessary for both th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR **** :JUDGMENT: Vikas Verma Vs. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sci- ences, Bikaner & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.401/2012 Appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against the order dated 18.04.2012 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.749/2012 DATE OF JUDGMENT:13. h August, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat for Dr. Sachin Acharya, for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Rajvi, for respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for Veterinary Council of India. Reportable BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE LOHRA, J):1. Appalled by the judgment and order dated 18th of April 2012, passed by the writ Court, the appellant has laid this intra-Court appeal. [2] 2. The appellant has approached the writ Court seeking di- rection against the respondents to consider his case for mi- gration/transfer from Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar to College ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SBCWP No.7734/2010 Ram Narain Dhabhai & Anr. vs. State & ors. along with two other connected writ petitions. Judgment dated :6. 8/2013 1/46 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT **** (i) Ram Narain Dhabhai & anr. vs. State & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7734/2010 (ii) Laxmi Narain vs. State & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2403/2001 (iii) Chain Shanker Dhabhai vs. State & ors. & anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1049/2012 DATE OF JUDGMENT :6. h August, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. M.R.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhijit Joshi, for the petitioners. (CW No.7734/10 & 1049/12) Mr. J.P.Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddharth Joshi, for the petitioner (CW No.2403/2001) Mr. Vikas Balia, ] Mr. Deelip Kawadia ] Mr. Yashwant Mehta ] for the respective respondents. Mr Vijay Purohit, ] REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:1. The facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No. 7734/2010 Ram Narain Dhabhai & ors. vs. State and others and this c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SBCWP No.7734/2010 Ram Narain Dhabhai & Anr. vs. State & ors. along with two other connected writ petitions. Judgment dated :6. 8/2013 1/46 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT **** (i) Ram Narain Dhabhai & anr. vs. State & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7734/2010 (ii) Laxmi Narain vs. State & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2403/2001 (iii) Chain Shanker Dhabhai vs. State & ors. & anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1049/2012 DATE OF JUDGMENT :6. h August, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. M.R.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhijit Joshi, for the petitioners. (CW No.7734/10 & 1049/12) Mr. J.P.Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddharth Joshi, for the petitioner (CW No.2403/2001) Mr. Vikas Balia, ] Mr. Deelip Kawadia ] Mr. Yashwant Mehta ] for the respective respondents. Mr Vijay Purohit, ] REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:1. The facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No. 7734/2010 Ram Narain Dhabhai & ors. vs. State and others and this c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SBCWP No.7734/2010 Ram Narain Dhabhai & Anr. vs. State & ors. along with two other connected writ petitions. Judgment dated :6. 8/2013 1/46 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT **** (i) Ram Narain Dhabhai & anr. vs. State & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7734/2010 (ii) Laxmi Narain vs. State & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2403/2001 (iii) Chain Shanker Dhabhai vs. State & ors. & anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1049/2012 DATE OF JUDGMENT :6. h August, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. M.R.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhijit Joshi, for the petitioners. (CW No.7734/10 & 1049/12) Mr. J.P.Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddharth Joshi, for the petitioner (CW No.2403/2001) Mr. Vikas Balia, ] Mr. Deelip Kawadia ] Mr. Yashwant Mehta ] for the respective respondents. Mr Vijay Purohit, ] REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:1. The facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No. 7734/2010 Ram Narain Dhabhai & ors. vs. State and others and this c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B.C.W.P. No.5944/2009 Kalani Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dt:06. 08/2013 1/23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5944/2009 Kalani Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :::06. h August, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, Govt. Counsel for the respondents. -- BY THE COURT:1. The petitioner-company, Kalani Industries Pvt. Ltd., was allotted 30 hectares (74.13 acres) of land situated at Bara Bagh, Jaisalmer, by the respondent, State Government for a period of 30 years for setting up a wind farm project on 27.12.2000 under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Area Allotment) Rules, 1959 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1959') and a lease-deed was executed in favour of petitioner-company on 09.04.2001 registered on 10.04.2001 with the Sub-Registrar, Jaisalmer. The pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.164/2013 Ambalal & Ors. Vs. Shri Dadhimati Mataji Mandir Pranyas & Ors. Date of Judgment 01st August, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. M.R. Singhvi Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohit Singhvi, for the appellants. Mr. L.R. Mehta} Mr. Rajesh Joshi}, for respondent No.1-caveator. ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaur, whereby, the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by respondent-plaintiff has been accepted and appellants and its supporters have been restrained from obstructing the plaintiff from placing a new face ( ), crown (), chhatra () etc. on the idol of Mataji in the temple and it has been clarified that the sliver face, which is there at present can be removed by the plaintiff and it can place a new face on the idol and the old face shall remain deposited wi...
Tag this Judgment!