Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj185; 1983()WLN439
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This matter has come before us on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court and arises out of an appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. 2. The appellant Ramdhan was declared elected as a Member of the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly from the Ladnu Legislative Assembly Constituency on June 1, 1980. The respondent Bhanwarlal claiming himself to be an elector of the Ladnu Constituency presented an election petition in this Court on July 14, 1980 alleging that Ramdhan was guilty of corrupt practice specified in Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on account of his incurring expenditure in contravention of the provisions of Section 77 of the Act. According to the petitioner Bhanwarlal, the expenditure incurred by the returned candidate Ramdhan, in connection with the aforesaid election, exceeded the maximum limit authorised to be incurred by the notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj63; 2003(2)WLN28
B. Prasad, J.1. These two appeals are filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). With the repeal of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, Section 18 also stands repealed. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vasna Ram, reported in 2002 (2) WLC (Raj) 383, has taken note of this fact thus:--'This appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). That Ordinance provided inter-Court appeal against the judgment and order of the single Judge passed in writ petitions and also against the judgments in first appeal by the single Judge. The said Ordinance stood repealed by the Judicial Administration Laws (Repeal) Act, 2001 (Act No. 22 of 2001) which received the assent of Hon'ble the President of India on 29-8-2001 and has been published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, dated 29-8-2001....
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
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
Reported in : 2002(4)WLC67; 2003(2)WLN298
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 27th January, 1999 rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sriganganagar, in Civil Reference No. 155/93 Brijlal, Prabhudayal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., on 2nd April, 1998.3. The controversy arose in the following facts and circumstances. By a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Govt. of Rajasthan on 29th September, 1989 made known its intention to acquire 5044 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land, which included the land of the respondents, which is situated in Ganganagar District. The land is sought to be acquired for Union of India. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6(4) and direction under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 were issued o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1982Raj39; 1981()WLN233
1. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge, dated June 29, 1981.2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity as well as on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The plaintiff-landlord filed an application under Section 13 (6) of the Rajasthan, Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 1-9-78 for striking off the defence against eviction. The learned District Judge. Alwar by his order dated 23-7-79 allowed the application and struck off the defence against eviction. The defendants filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act in this Court, which came UD for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal by his judgment, dated June 29, 1981- The defendants have filed the present appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge. A preliminary objection was raised by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(1993)ACC663; 1994ACJ157; AIR1994Raj44; 1993(2)WLC593
1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 30th October, 1986.2. On 24th June, 1974, Rao Dheer Singh was going from Manoharpura to Shahpura in his car No. RJL 8207. The fuel exhausted abruptly, as a result the car was stopped by its driver. He went to Shahpura to bring the petrol. Rao Dheer Singh, its owner, remained sitting in the car. At about 1.00 A.M. truck No. RJR 6607 driven by Tara Chand rashly and negligently dashed against the standing car resulting in instantaneous death of Rao Dheer Singh.3. On the above bedrock of facts, a claim petition was filed by his widow, two sons and daughters under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 6 lacs against the owner of the truck No. RJR 6607 and the Oriental Insurance Company with which the car was insured.4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur made an Award in favour of the claimants and also found that the Oriental Insurance Company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996ACJ447; 1996(3)WLC674
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The expression 'an appeal' occurring in Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (and now in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) has given rise to these matters before the Full Bench. Does the expression 'an appeal' connote number of appeals available to an aggrieved person or is it used as requirement of grammar of English language to write the correct language? This, in short, is the question to be examined and decided by the Full Bench in both these appeals. The special appeals arise out of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'). In both these special appeals, the Division Bench of this court by order dated 10.8.1993 referred the following question to a larger Bench:Whether a special appeal lies under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against a judgment of the learned single Judge under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985(2)WLN729
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (for short the Ordinance') against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated November 8, 1985 affirming the order dated December 8, 1976 passed by the District Judge, Pratabgarh.2. The matter arises out of the proceedings under the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrators filed their Award against which objections were filed before learned District Judge, Pratabgarh by his order dated December 8, 1976 rejected the objections and made the Award rule of the Court against which appeal was preferred by the objector Shri Chhabildas. That appeal was dismissed.3. Mr. D.S. Shishodia appearing for respondent No. 1 as Caveator raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal. He submitted that the appeal is barred under Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 bars the second appeal from an order passed in appeal under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(2001)ACC252; 2002ACJ145; 2000(3)WLC357; 2000(2)WLN608
N.N. Mathur and Amaresh K. Singh, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the judgment dated 3.1.96 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 523 of 1994. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the award dated 28.10.93 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in Claim Case No. WE/67 of 3989 awarding a sum of Rs./ 76,856 as well as interest under Section 4-A(3) and penalty under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be briefly summarised as below:Sayed Khan Pathan was working as a driver on truck No. RSY 8071 belonging to Rafiq Khan (respondent No. 8). The truck was insured with the present appellant, namely, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jodhpur under policy No. 30/00143/90 dated 19.8.1989. On 19.8.1989 at 8 a.m., Sayed Khan Pat...
Tag this Judgment!