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 : 1977WLN357
D.P. Gupta, J.1.This is an appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the wife's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act).2. The respondent filed a petition for divorce before the District Judge Jodhpur in which a decree for divorce was passed on January 4, 1977. The appellant Smt. Priti Parihar filed an appeal in this Court against the aforesaid decree. Along with the appeal she also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act praying for grant of interim maintenance and expenses of the appeal. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 15-4-1977. directed the respondent to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 200/- per month by way of maintenance pendente lite and also awarded her a sum of Rs. 400/- by way of expenses of the appeal. This order has been challenged by the wife in this appeal.3. A preliminary objection has been raised in respect of the maintainability of the appeal and it, has been urged by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(2004)ACC655; 2005ACJ29; AIR2004Raj39; 2005(1)KLT828; RLW2004(3)Raj1454; 2004(1)WLC339
Mathur, J. 1. At the motion stage, a question of wide ramification arises for consideration is whether the Special Appeal filed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of a learned single Judge passed in an appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable in view of Section 100A introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 with effect from 1-7-2002?2. The impact of Section 100A with respect, to special appeals preferred under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, as stood before commencement of the Constitution and imported under Article 225 of the Constitution, against an original or appellate decree or order passed by the learned single Judge after 1-7-2002 was examined by the Division Bench of this Court in UCO Bank v. Roopa Ram reported in (2003) 6 ILD 421 : (AIR 2003 Rajasthan 222), to which one of us (Mathur, J.) was a party. The Division Bench held that in view of Section 100A of the Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj105
Ranawat, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Badridass Kanhaiyalal, a registered firm and Shri Mahmood Khan, Motor Contractor of Tonk against the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur and three others for writs of certiorari and prohibition quashing the orders of respondents No. 1 and 2 dated 29-9-1958, and 5 and 6-5-1951 respectively and restraining them from issuing further permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 on Tonk-Sawai Madhopur route.2. The allegations of the petitioners are that they hold three stage carriage permits for plying buses on Tonk-Sawai Madhopur route and that the traffic on the said route is meagre and one only out of the three vehicles of the petitioners is used to meet the requirements of the traffic and the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Tonk, after holding enquiries regarding the condition of the traffic on the route, came to the conclusion that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... 67. it is settled legal position that the punishment must fit the crime. it is the duty of the court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. as a measure of social necessity and also as a means of deterring other potential offenders, the sentence should be appropriate befitting the crime. . we fully endorse the above view once again.34. it is relevant to point out that section 364-a had been introduced in the ipc by virtue of amendment act ..... rs.2 crores were demanded as ransom is inconsequential. it is a matter of common knowledge that abductors keep altering their demands depending upon the change in circumstances. 32.pw3 gaurav further stated that the accused had talked to his mother on landline phone and asked him to talk to his mother. he told his mother ..... they talked about ransom and abduction. supplementary statement of pw1 mr vinay kumar jain had also been recorded by the investigating officer on 16th december 2002 wherein he stated about the demand of rs.3 crores for the release of his son. there is a minor contradiction about time on which he received ..... sympathy or leniency. 13.it is patent from the perusal of section 364a ipc that offence of kidnapping or abduction for ransom accompanied by threat to cause death or hurt contemplates punishment with death. it is, thus, not the requirement of law that death or even hurt should actually be caused for the offence to fall under section 364a ipc. 14.hon' .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... 67. it is settled legal position that the punishment must fit the crime. it is the duty of the court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. as a measure of social necessity and also as a means of deterring other potential offenders, the sentence should be appropriate befitting the crime. . we fully endorse the above view once again.34. it is relevant to point out that section 364-a had been introduced in the ipc by virtue of amendment act ..... rs.2 crores were demanded as ransom is inconsequential. it is a matter of common knowledge that abductors keep altering their demands depending upon the change in circumstances. 32.pw3 gaurav further stated that the accused had talked to his mother on landline phone and asked him to talk to his mother. he told his mother ..... they talked about ransom and abduction. supplementary statement of pw1 mr vinay kumar jain had also been recorded by the investigating officer on 16th december 2002 wherein he stated about the demand of rs.3 crores for the release of his son. there is a minor contradiction about time on which he received ..... sympathy or leniency. 13.it is patent from the perusal of section 364a ipc that offence of kidnapping or abduction for ransom accompanied by threat to cause death or hurt contemplates punishment with death. it is, thus, not the requirement of law that death or even hurt should actually be caused for the offence to fall under section 364a ipc. 14.hon' .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj222; RLW2003(4)Raj2167; 2003(3)WLC284
Mathur, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3-1-2003 (reported in 2003 AIHC 1273) affirming the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1995 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 263/1994.2. Mr. L.R. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the special appeal in view of the prohibition provided by Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999 and C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002 read with Section 32 of the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999. In view of the importance of the question raised a general notice inviting assistance of the lawyers whosoever desires of throwing light on the aforesaid issue about the maintainability of appeal with respect to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of ordinary civil jurisdiction in the matters arising under the Code of Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
..... earlier judgments of this court which are anandi lal v. state of rajasthan and ors. : 1996 (2) wlc (raj.) 36; mohan lal v. lal chand 2001 (1) wlc 129; punjab national bank v. purewell : 2002 (1) wlc (raj.) 67; sher singh meena v. chief engineer 2004 (4) wlc 288 and the full bench decision in the state of rajasthan v. v.r.c. mishra 2003 (2) wlc 235 and lastly, the full bench decision of this ..... by all earlier judgments of the supreme court, that if order is under article 227 of the constitution of india, no intra-court appeal is maintainable. we are of the opinion that there cannot be appellate, revisional or (super) supervisory jurisdiction over supervisory jurisdiction.32. none of the judgment has been brought to our knowledge deciding the issue that when a writ petition is preferred to challenge the order of the subordinate court, then whether the high court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 or under article 226 ..... the effect of amendment in the rule 134(1) of the rules of 1952.20. in the judgment of umaji keshao meshram(supra), the same question was for consideration before the hon'ble supreme court and that was whether intra-court appeal before division bench against judgment of single judge is maintainable or not. hon'ble the apex court considered clause 15 of the letters patent of bombay high court as well as the law which was in force before the clause 15 of the letters patent of bombay high court, like section 107 of the government of india act, 1915 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2008ACJ541; RLW2008(1)Raj27
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since common question of law is involved in connection with maintainability of Civil Special appeal against the decision of the learned Single judge, all these matters are disposed of by this common order.2. All the special appeals are preferred against the decision of learned Single Judge delivered in various civil misc. appeals. The Civil misc. appeals were filed either under Section 96 of C.P.C. or under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act or against the order of ESI Court or any other special statute. However, the fact remains that the learned Single Judge has passed the orders on merits in various such S.B. Civil misc. appeals, therefore, the question which arises for determination is whether the civil special appeal is maintainable against the decision of learned Single Judge passed in civil misc. appeal, in view of provisions of Section 100A C.P.C. and recent judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of RSRTC v. Vaibhav Kumar and Ors. reported in .3...
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!