Rajasthan Court April 1999 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.
Miss Lalita Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC54; 1999(1)WLN334
ORDERNo. Estt/HC/98/310 Dated : 25/9/1998The following persons are hereby appointed as Lower Division Clerks on urgent/ad hoc temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 on a fixed amount of Rs. 3050/- + DA. as admissible per month for a period of six (six) months or till regularly selected candidates are available whichever is earlier, subject to the verification of their original certificate regarding age and qualifications They are posted at the place shown against their names.------------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Name of persons with Date of birth Place of postingFather's/Husband's Name------------------------------------------------------------------1 2 3 4------------------------------------------------------------------43. Miss Lalita Gehlot 02.07.77 Principal D/o Keshu Singh Seat at Jodhpur------------------------------------------------------------------They will submit the Medical certificate issued by competent authority according to ...
Chetanram Ramgopal Vs. Chief Engineer, Pwd, Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj315; 2000(1)WLC137; 1999(1)WLN355
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. These three writ petitions involve identical questions of law and, therefore, they are being decided by a common order.2. These three writ petitions relate to different tenders. The amount and dates are different. Except these the controversy involved is same. For determination of the controversy involved in these cases, the facts as given out in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2363 of ; 988 are being considered.3. The petitioner firm was enlisted provisionally as 'A' Class Contractors and such enlistment was renewed from time to time and finally by order [Annexure/4] dated 22-2-1984, it was enlisted permanently as 'A' Class Contractors of the Public Works Department.4. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the orders of respondents by virtue of which the respondents have removed the name of the petitioner firm from the above list of 'A' Class Contractors on the one hand and on the other hand, the respondents are realising the amount of Rs. 50,000/- ...
Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Bar Council of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj325; 1999(3)WLC556; 1999(1)WLN594
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. Petitioner-Laxminarayan is present in person. He insisted that he may be heard and the matter be decided by the Court in view of the fact that he has been denied to practise as a lawyer by the impugned order dated 16-11-96 (Annexure-1) passed by the Bar Council of India and because of that he is literally starving.Though served none has put up his appearance for the respondent No. 1-Bar Council of India. Mr. R.P. Malik, Senior Office Assistant of Bar Council of Rajasthan is present in person. No one was present for the respondent No. 3-University. 2. On 6-3-98 this Court (P.P. Navlekar) ordered to issue notice in this petition as to why this writ petition may not be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Except by the respondent No. 3, University, no reply is filed either by the Bar Council of India or by the Bar Council of Rajasthan. 3. The impugned order at Annexure-1 came to be passed by the Bar Council of India on a reference made under Section 26( 1) o...
Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN581
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 25.2.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu whereby he ordered joint trial of the petitioners.2. The relevant facts of the case are these. On 15.10.1992, the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Ratangarh lodged first information report at P.S. Churu stating therein that the officers of the Medical & Health Department after forming separate groups went to Gudari Bazar, Churu in order to take samples of food articles and as they started taking samples 30-40 persons collected and they did not allow the officials to take samples and even gave beatings to them and snatched their papers. On this report, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 382, 379, 472 and 504 IPC and Section 3 of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. The police after the completion of the investigation filed a challan against 11 petitioners. The petitioners filed an applica...
Rameshwar Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC741; 1999(1)WLN596
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the impugned-order dated 5-4-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota in Criminal Case No. 5/90 whereby the said Appellate Court had upheld the order of the learned CJM Kota dated 27-7-1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 160/79 whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 3/7 of the EC Act : 3 months S.I. and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default, 2 months S.I.Under Section 3/9 of the EC Act : 1 month S.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default, 1 month S.I.2. The case of the prosecution in short is that complaint was filed against the petitioner by the complainant-Enforcement Inspector on 21-2-1978 alleging that in the distribution register the accused-petitioner had made forged entries in violation of the conditions of the licence for running the fair price shop. On the basis of the said complaint, the statements of the witnesses were recorded before the learned CJM Kota. The trial ...
Smt. Pura Vs. Lalki and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC673; 1999(1)WLN598
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Pura, who was declared elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, 9, L.M. (B) (12), of Panchayat Samiti, Anupgarh, has filed this writ petition and challenged the order of re-counting dated 1.7.1996 (Annex.2), memo of re-count dated 26.7.1996, order dated 30.8.1996 restoring the election petition to its original number, judgment dated 4.10.1996 (Annex.4) and the proceedings of the draw of lots and declaration of result dated 4.10.1996 and the ex parte order dated 13.10.1995.2. Learned Counsel Shri Shishodia, however, has assailed the order dated 1.7.1996 (part of Annex.2) and judgment and order dated 4.10.1996 (Annex.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anupgarh (Sri Ganganagar). Mr. Shishodia firstly submitted that in absence of any application for re- count, no order of re-count could have been passed in view of Rule 49 (6) of the rajsthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. He has placed reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment repor...
Surendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC716; 1999(1)WLN583
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to the respondents to give employment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner's father Narpat Singh was working as Driver with the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Jodhpur, and while in service, he died on 26.9.1990. At the relevant time, petitioner was studying in Diploma in Mechanical Trade and he filed an application for employment under the said Rules in 1994. Petitioner's application was forwarded to the Department of personnel vide communication dated 12.3.1996 and the Deputy Secretary of Department of personnel, in his letter verified that as petitioner's father was in the regular cadre, he was entitled for appointment on regular basis and with this endorsement, petitione...
Mukhtiar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4928
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 56/ 92, the appellants Mukhtiar Singh, Khanda Singh, Onkar Singh, Mahendra Singh, Pritam Singh and Joginder Singh have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also on the grounds canvassed before us during the course of arguments. Accused appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/- for offence Under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. and for the offence Under Section 147, I.P.C., they were fined with Rs. 1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned P. P., we have.re-appreciated the evidence on record and have scrutinised the entire record and heard the learned counsel for both parties.3. Stated briefly the story of the prosecution is that on 15-6-92 at about 5 in the e...
Om Prakash Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC483; 1999(1)WLN518
G.L. Gupta, J.1. The misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 11.3.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh whereby he upheld the order dt. 8.1.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh rejecting the application of complainant petitioner Omprakash.2. Mr. Beniwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, points out that in respect of the occurrence which took place in the evening of 28.2.1996 both the parties lodged reportes on which F.I.R. Nos. 83/96 and 84/96 were registered, and the police filed challan in both the cases, and the learned Magistrate committed the case of F.I.R. 84/96 to the Court of Sessions. He contends that since the Cr. Case No. 257/96 filed on F.I.R. No. 83/96 is a cross case of the case committed to the Court of Sessions, the complainant's application dt. 31.10.1996 for committing this case to the Court of Sessions ought to have been allowed. He submits that since both the cases arise out of one and the same incident, they should be ...
Brij Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC148; 1999(1)WLN519
B.J. Shethna, J.1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the points involved in this petition are the same and all these writ petitions are filed against the impugned common order dated 29.3.1997 passed in different revision petitions by the Addl. District Collector; Nohar district Hanumangarh.2. On 24.9.1997 by public auction, the petitioners were allotted Pattas of land by the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The same were challenged by way of revision petitions only in 1996 by the State as well as the private respondents before the Addl. District Collector, Nohar, Hanumangarh. They were allowed by the learned Addl. District Collector by his impugned common order dated 29.3.1997 on the ground that there was a clear breach of Rules 256, 257, 258 and 265 of the Panchayat Rules and that it was a public school land. The said impugned common order dated 29.3.1997 is challenged in above petitions.3. Learned Counsel Shri Sharma for the petitioners in all these petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »