Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ORDER (1)SB Civil Writ Petition No.2330/2014 (M/s Chachan Brothers Cotton Ginning Pressing Rice & Oil Mills v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (2)SB Civil Writ Petition No.1713/2014 (M/s Sat Sahib Enterprises v. State of Rajathan & ORS.(3)SB Civil Writ Petition No.1726/2014 (M/s Balaji Industries v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (4)SB Civil Writ Petition No.1727/2014 (M/s Sat Sahib Cotton Traders v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (5)SB Civil Writ Petition No.1728/2014 (M/s Sat Sahib Cotton Processing Factory v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (6)SB Civil Writ Petition No.2057/2014 (M/s Gurunanak Industries v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (7)SB Civil Writ Petition No.2369/2014 (M/s Subh Laxmi Oil Industries v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (8)SB Civil Writ Petition No.1919/2014 (M/s Chandrabhan Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (9)SB Civil Writ Petition No.2196/2014 (M/s Navdurga Industries v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) (10)SB Civil Writ Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 16.12.2014, whereby, application submitted by the petitioner under section 306 Cr.P.C. for pardon was dismissed as was filed without first making a request to the prosecution to examine the petitioner as their witness. 2. It is stated that dismissal of the application is not proper. The court should have first sent it to the prosecution for their comments and thereupon to decide the application. The court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that before filing it, prosecution was not requested to produce accused-applicant as their witness. The court failed to consider scope of section 306 Cr.P.C. while passing the order, thus impugned order may be quashed with a direction to the court below to accept the application. To appreciate the scope of section 306 Cr.P.C., this court requested Mr. Mahendra Singh, learned Advocate to assist the court. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Singh refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 SHREE CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN DTD. 11.10.20111/105IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 Shree Cement Ltd. V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Judgment : 11th October 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr.S.Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bapna, Advocate General and Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Mathur, Lokesh Mathur, Mr.Sunil Beniwal, for the respondents. BY THE COURT -1. How negative executive interventions, lack of political will and wisdom can cause laggard, sluggish and distorted industrial growth in a State, though rich in minerals, lime stone in present case in the State of Rajasthan and sufferer is a cement manufacturing unit, will be borne out from what follows in this case. 2. Another caveat on legislative practices, particularly subordinate legislation and executive policy decisions and the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1195/2015 Smt.Mukut Raj Laxmi & Anr. Vs Dr.Jitendra Singh & ORS.Date of Order :: 26th November 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.S.C.Maloo for the petitioners Mr.O.P.Mehta for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.G.R.Singhvi for the respondent No.3 BY THE COURT: Imploring annulment of impugned order dated 15.01.2015 (Annex.5) passed by learned District Judge, Jaisalmer (for short the learned court below).the petitioners-defendants have laid this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. By the order impugned, the learned court below has accepted the application of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC in a suit for possession, mesne profits and perpetual injunction. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that fiRs.and second respondents-plaintiffs jointly filed a suit for possession, mesne profits and perpetual injunction against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR **** :JUDGMENT: Yashpal Singh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12093/2010 Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of In- dia DATE OF JUDGMENT:19. h August, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. Dipesh Beniwal, legal representative of the petitioner, in person. Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India for re- spondent No.2, Rajasthan High Court. Mr. Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pradhuman Singh, for the respondent State. Reportable BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE LOHRA, J):1. This legal battle was launched at the behest of a compulsorily retired judicial officer for assailing the impugned order dated 31st of March 2010 (An- [2] nex.9), and after his unfortunate demise in Ut- trakhand Gory Tragedy, is pursued by his legal representatives.2. Scorning the checkered history of the case, the brief ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B.CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.917/2011 M/s. Perfect Thread Mills Limited Vs The Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) cum SDO, Girwa & Anr. Date of Judgment ::17. h November 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.Manish Singhvi and Mr.Anjay Kothari for the appellant Mr.Akhilesh Rajpurohit and Mr.Vinit Sanadhya for the respondent No.2 NHAI Reportable BY THE COURT: Appellant, a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has laid this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') to assail the impugned order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur (for short 'the learned court below') as well as the award dated 02.01.2007 rendered by Arbitral Tribunal and the award dated 11.08.2006 passed by the Competent Authority (LA)-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Girwa insofar as the same relate to compensation for acquisition of l...
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
Sunil Ambwani, ACJ. 1. We have heard Ms. Indira Jai Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, Ms. Bindu N. Doddahat and Mr. Satish Kumar for the petitioners in DBCWP No.375/2015-Dulari Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and DBCWP No.376/2015- Norati and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.; Mr. Rajendra Soni in DBCWP No.1/2015, Mr. Pradeep Kalwania in DBCWP No.209/2015; Shri S.S. Hora in DBCWP Nos.503/2015 and 504/2015; Mr. Vijay Choudhary in DBCWP No.251/2015, Mr. Hanuman Choudhary in DBCWP No.250/2015, Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj in DBCWP Nos.121/2015 and 122/2015, and Mr. Bharat Yadav for the petitioners. Mr. Narpal Mal Lodha, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Vishal Soni, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Anurag Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. R.B. Mathur, appear for the State of Rajasthan and other respondents. 2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
DB CrA No.565/2005 & 574/2005 1/23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: JUDGMENT :: APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: Vikas Verma @ Vicky v. State of Rajasthan D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.565 OF2005APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: Mahendra Singh @ Happy v. State of Rajasthan D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF2005:: Date of Order :30. March 2015 :: PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr Mahesh Bora, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr Nishant Bora, for the appellant- Vikas Verma Mr H.M. Saraswat, for appellant Mahendra Singh Mr J.P. Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor Mr Niranjan Gaur } Mr Mahesh Thanvi } for the complainant BY THE COURT {Per Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal}: These appeals are directed against judgment dated 10.06.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.78/2003 whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for offences under sections 365, 364A, 392 and 120B IPC and sentenced as under: Se...
Tag this Judgment!