Rajasthan Jodhpur Court November 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Manphool Singh Vs. State (Habeas Corpus) and ors
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
-1- DB Habeas Corpus Petition No.12067/2012 Manphool Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order ::23. d November, 2012 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. K.R.Bishnoi, Government Advocate. Mr. Vineet Jain, for the respondents. .... This Habeas Corpus petition is preferred by Shri Manphool Singh son of Bhagirath, aged 25 years, resident of 29 STG, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh to have a direction for the respondents No.1 2 and 3 to produce corpus Ms. Jaishree before the Court. As per the averments contained contained in the petition, the petitioner and Ms. Jaishree fall in love during the period from the year 2009 to 2011. They entered into a wedlock on 2.11.2012. Subsequent thereto on 2.11.2012 itself the respondent No.4, father of Ms. Jaishree, forcibly took her to his home and detained there illegally. With the factual foundation noticed above, this Court issued a notice to the respon...
Anita Sehli Vs. State of Raj. and ors
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12405/2012 Anita Sehli Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER ::23. 11.2012 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. R.K. Poonia & Mr. Raju Singh Chahar, for the petitioner. Dr. G.R. Kalla, Government Advocate. .... BY THE COURT : Issue notice to the respondents as to why this petition for writ be not accepted as prayed. Dr. GR Kalla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent accepts the same, as such, the service is sufficient. The writ petition is finally heard and disposed of today itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, being having a controversy of narrow amplitude. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, a widow, faced process of selection for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.II in the subject of Hindi. By order dated 14.9.2012 the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Zone, Churu 2 appointed and posted the petitioner as Teacher ...
Pitambar Das Rathi Vs. State and ors
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5611/2008 (Anju Gurjar Vs. State & Ors) Date of Order ::21. 11.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. B.S. Charan, for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Patodia, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is claiming appointment on the post of Rozgar Sahayak in pursuance of advertisement dated 11.02.2008. In my opinion, the term for appointment on the said post has already expired, therefore, no case for interference is made out. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.Bjsh...
Mohan Ram Patel Vs. State (Revenue) and anr
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
S.B.C.W.P.No.7419/2012 Mohan Ram Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. !! 1 !! IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7419/2012 (Mohan Ram Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order ::23. 11.2012 PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Manoj Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr. R.G. Punia AAG Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yashpal Khileree, for the State. Mr. I.S. Pareek, for the respondents. ---------- BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the transfer order solely on the ground that District Collector has no power to transfer the Patwari in view of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on 13.07.2011 an amendment was made by the State Government in the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) (Amendment) Rules, 2011, whereby, the Sub Divisional Officer was given power to transfer th...
Union of India and ors Vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12407/2012. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma // 1 // 16 D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12407/2012. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma .. Date of Order ::23. d November 2012. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. V.K. Mathur ] Mr. Ankur Mathur ], for the petitioners. BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition, the petitioners seek to question the order dated 11.11.2011 as passed in Original Application ('OA') No. 43/2010 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('CAT'), while allowing the OA filed by the respondent, has directed the present petitioners to grant the same benefits to the applicant as had been allowed in relation to the similarly situated persons, i.e., the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme ('ACP Scheme') and payment of upgradation in ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from the date of completion of 12 years of service. The l...
Neetu Shekhawat and ors Vs. State of Raj. and ors
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
S.B.C.W.P.No.8107/2009 Neetu Shekhawat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. !! 1 !! IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8107/2009 (Neetu Shekhawat & Ors.Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order ::23. 11.2012 PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Dhirendra Singh, for the petitioners. ---------- BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relif:- a. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment in pursuance of the selection process held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.05.2008, in which, the petitioners were selected with all consequential benefits. b. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give effect to the selection process held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.05.2008. c. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, ...
Kalu Ram Vs. Central Admi. Tribunal Jodhpur and ors
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
1 DBCWP NO.12243/2012 Kalu Ram Vs. CAT, Jodhpur & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12243/2012 Kalu Ram Vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur & Ors. Date of Order ::23. d November 2012. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Basti Chand for the petitioner BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, now about 56 years of age, seeks to question the order dated 30.01.2012 as passed in Original Application (OA) No.222/2008 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (CAT) declined his prayer for quashing of the alleged verbal order dated 12.06.2000 terminating his services after finding that he was engaged only as a casual labourer intermittently. It appears that the petitioner had been engaged as a casual labourer in the General Reserved Engineering Force (GREF) of the Border Roads Organization. The petitioner alleged termination of his service w.e.f. 12.06.2000 and raised an industrial dispute whereupon a ...
Saheb Ram and anr Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.489/2011 Saheb Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order :23. 11.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. M.K.Garg, for the petitioners. Mr. K.K.Rawal, P.P. Mr. Farzand Ali, for the complainant. The instant misc. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tibbi, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323/34 and 452 of the IPC as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh vide his order dated 23.2.2011. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 4 independent witnesses have stated that the quarrel took place in the lane outside the complainant's house and therefore, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 452 IPC is absolutely illegal and amounts to...
Mohan Lal Vs. State (Revenue) and anr
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
!! 1 !! IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6309/2012 (Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order ::23. 11.2012 PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. C.S. Kotwani, for the petitioner. Mr. R.G. Punia AAG Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yashpal Khileree, for the State. Mr. I.S. Pareek, for the respondents. ---------- BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the transfer order solely on the ground that District Collector has no power to transfer the Patwari in view of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957. !! 2 !! Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on 13.07.2011 an amendment was made by the State Government in the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) (Amendment) Rules, 2011, whereby, the Sub Divisional Officer was given power to transfer the Patwari anywhere within the Sub-Division and the Collector has b...
Union of India and ors Vs. J. P. Jaitmal
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9585/2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: Union of India & Ors. Vs. J.P.Jaitmal D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9585/2012 Date of Order ::23. d November 2012 Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.V.K.Mathur ] Mr.Ankur Mathur ] Ms.Garima Chouhan] for the petitioners Mr.J.K.Kaushik, for the respondent BY THE COURT: After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to entertain this writ petition so as to consider interference in the order dated 12.05.2011 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (the CAT) has partly allowed the original application (OA No.11/2008) filed by the applicant-respondent on his grievance against fixation of pay under the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 [the Orders of 1986] and the Central Civil Services (Revi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »