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
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2295
..... other notification after the vacation of the said interim order dated 28.10.94, there was nothing on the basis of which the respondents could have completed the acquisition proceedings. submissions made by the respondents are preposterous.here, in the instant case, after 21.12.1993 i.e. the alleged date of first cancellation of the ..... acts illegally and all proceedings taken after the knowledge of the order would be a nullity.20. the respondents have taken a specific plea to save the acquisition proceedings that they could not proceed further because of the interim order passed by this court on 20.5.91. the said stay order was vacated on 28 ..... breath. if the interim order was there and the respondents were aware of it, they were not supposed to proceed with acquisition proceedings at all and if by ignoring the same, respondents proceeded with acquisition they cannot be permitted to take any advantage of the said interim order. therefore, contention raised by the respondents has no substance .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2008Raj8; (2008)2MLJ349
..... not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory.illustrations (i) a collision takes place on a railway in consequence of some neglect or default of an official, and a passenger is severely hurt, but not so as to cause death. he afterwards dies without having brought any action. the cause of action does not survive.(ii) a sues for divorce .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)11VST766(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Question relates to continued exemption on inter-State sales of processed cereal-wheat for the assessment period under notification issued under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 dated March 6, 1978 which has not been withdrawn.2. The petitioner-firm is a dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner also holds a recommendation certificate issued by the Khadi and Gramodhyog Board, Rajasthan, constituted under the Rajasthan Khadi and village Industries Board Act, 1955. A Notification No. F. 4(21) FD/Gr. IV/78-6 dated March 6, 1978 was issued by the State Government as a delegate of the Parliament under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 granting exemption from tax, sales of certain commodities by any dealer, having his place of business in the State, and who holds an exemption certificate without payment of any fees issued to him on the recommendation of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1736; 2005(2)WLC612
K.S. Rathore, J.1. These are two writ petitions involving similar questions of law and, therefore, both the petitions are being heard together and decided by this common order.2. The facts of the writ petition No. 6144/2004 are being taken as leading case. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petitions has prayed for writ, order or direction to quash and set aside FIR Nos. 109/2004 and 110/2004 registered before Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and all investigation and proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.3. The brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as Member, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, an FIR No. 109/2004 under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(a), 13(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with 120B IPC was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau on 9.6.2004.4. The allegation in the FIR was that according to source information illegal benefit was to be granted by the petitioner by passing a review order in a revenue matter titled Kamla Devi v. State. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj19; IV(2005)BC475; RLW2005(2)Raj1336; 2005(3)WLC341
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The appellants State of Rajasthan and others have submitted this appeal against the order dated 28.11.1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 86/1986 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the demand notice-Annex. 13 and directed the State Government to deposit the amount of Rs. 29,627/- received from the petitioner in the welfare fund at the disposal of the Chief Minister.2. The matter pertains to the attempted recovery towards alleged breach of contract by the writ petitioner-Nathulal. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants issued a notice inviting offers for the contract of collection of Tendu leaves in different forest areas. The invitation was issued on 30.1.1973 (Annex.R/1) fixing the date of auction as 22.2.1973. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was one of the bidders for the area of erstwhile Bijoliya Jagir falling in Mandalgarh range of Forest Division, Chittorgarh for the season of 1973. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj486; 2005(1)WLC52
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. The petitioners' claim that the carbonated drinks manufactured by PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are contaminated and laced with pesticides, which are dangerous to human life. The petitioners seek a ban on their sale and use by the public at large. It is also the case of the petitioners that the drinks manufactured by these companies contain suspended impurities. In order to substantiate their point they had presented before us few bottles of soft drinks alleged to have been manufactured by PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, which on ocular examination show presence of foreign material. But that we need to ignore because the issue cannot be conclusively determined in the absence of the evidence of an expert. It has been argued in these petitions by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the manufactures ought to make a complete and full disclosure of the composition and contents of their products including the presence, if any, of the pesticides and chemicals therein, so that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(1)Raj60; 2004(1)WLC132
Goyal, J.1. Facts giving rise to this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. briefly narrated are that respondent plaintiff filed a civil suit against the original tenant Mohd. Adam Kureshi, on 1.8.1975, for eviction and arrears of rent with the averments that the tenant committed default in payment of rent from 1,2.1973 and the suit shop was required by the plaintiff. The defendant in his written statement while admitting his tenancy denied the ground of eviction. Issues were framed and after recording the evidence of the parties, decree of eviction videjudgment dated 10.9.1997 was passed on the ground that requirement of plaintiff was reasonable and bonafide and comparative hardship would be caused to the plaintiff in case decree of eviction is not passed.2. First regular Appeal No. 40/97, filed by the original Mohd. Adam Kureshi was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota, vide impugned judgment dated 8.7. 2002, on the ground that the appellant-tenant died during ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLC720; 2002(5)WLN577
Madan, J. 1. In second inning of his legal battle the petitioner has challenged impugned orders dt.13.1.94 (Annex.4) dismissing him from service for the misconduct and which has been affirmed in his appeal by order dt.29.7.94 (Annex,6). 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 1.12.1973 by the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) Jaipur and later on was transferred to the office of S.P. Sikar in January, 1987. During his posting as Constable in Treasury Guard, Sikar on 12.5.91; as per charge sheet dated 21.8.91, the petitioner is alleged to have left place of his duty (Treasury Guard) alongwith a register but in a drunkard condition had proceeded to the office of S.P. Sikar alongwith his rifle, inasmuch as he ill-behaved with officials deployed in election duty in his drunkard state on the way and thereafter entered in the chambers of the S.P. The charge-sheet is said to have been served on 24.8.91 and where a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(3)WLC269; 2002(3)WLN174
..... to the higher post, a person acquires new seniority and becomes senior to a person standing on the lower post irrespective of his seniority in the lower post.4. that acquisition of new seniority by dint of promotion to the higher post over the persons senior to him on the junior post only results in eclipsing the inter se seniority originally .....
Tag this Judgment!