Rajasthan Court December 2000 Judgments
Anil Kumar Berwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN515
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents whereby he was denied admission in the Government Polytechnic College. The reason given by the respondents for denying admission to the petitioner is that his certificate issued by a Government Officer showing his status as Scheduled Caste does not record his surname. It only says, Anil Kumar son of Sualal, without specifying Berwal as his surname. Before the interview board the petitioner's candidature was not considered because the petitioner failed to fulfil the direction No. 7 of the brochure which is in terms of Rule 9(3)(i), Direction 7 reads as under-7 tkfr izek.k&i;=%& ;fn vH;FkhZ vuqlwfpr tkfr@ vuqlwfpr tutkfr @ vU; fiNM+k oxZ dk gS rks mUgs ewy tkfr izek.k&i;= l{ke vf/kdkjh ftyk/kh'k] mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ;k rglhynkj }kjk iznRr izek.k&i;= layXu fu/kkZfjr izi= es izLrqr djuk gksxk A bl izek.k&i;= ij izsf'kr la[;k] fnukad ,oa dk;Zky; dh lhy gksuk vfr vko';d gS...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj107; 2001(1)WLC372; 2001(1)WLN277
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.(1). The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. is the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers:i) to quash the order dated 13.10.2000 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the appeal has been entertained by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi and notices have been issued for summoning the parties; ii) to declare that the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order's dated 05.07.2000 and 06.09.2000 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur; iii) to quash the entire proceedings of appeal No. 191/2000 and 192/2000 by holding that no appeal was maintainable against the order's dated 5.7.2000 and 6.9.2000 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and to restrain the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi From proceeding further in the matter of hearing of the appeal; iv) and may pass an...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Kant Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC101; 2002(1)WLN234
ORDERBailia, J.(1). A short point is raised in this petition. The petitioner was initially appointed as Khalasi in Northern Railway, Jodhpur in the year 1981. Vide Advertisement No. 1/84, applications were invited by the Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer for a number of posts which included the posts of Clerks Gr. 1 and Senior Clerks. The petitioner submitted an application for selection to the post of Clerk Gr. I as well as Senior Clerk. He was called for selection and after undergoing the entire process of selection, a panel was issued on 2 7.8.1985 which contained the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 27. Vide letter dated 13.9.1985, the petitioner was intimated that he has been selected for appointment to the post of Clerk Gr. I and has been allotted the office of the Divisional Accounts Officer. Northern Railway, Jodhpur and the appointmentwill be given to him by that office. This lelter is Annx. 2 which is reproduced herein-below:-RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD41/32, Majo College Ro...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaju and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Alwar and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN643
ORDERVerma, J.(1). The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the registered owners of the vehicle Tractor No. RJ-02/0138 challenging the award dated 5.5.99 passed by Molor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror District Alwar in MACT case No. 138/93 whereby the claimants have been awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-on account of death of Mulla Ram in the accident occurred on 23.2.93 and only the owners of the tractor were held liable to pay the compensation and the Insurance Company was exonerated.(2). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact they had sold the tractor to respondent No. 2 Prabhat before the accident and the said Prabhat had employed respondent No.3 Suresh Chand as driver of the tractor, who was not holding valid licence or the tractor was carrying passengers. The Tribunal had exonerated the Insurance company on the ground that the driver of the tractor was not holding valid licence.(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Sohan L...
Tag this Judgment!Amba Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC545; 2001(2)WLN178
ORDERChauhan, J. (1). The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.4.96 (Annex.2) and seeking a direction for release of retirement dues alongwith interest.(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on the date of retirement, i.e. 30.4.96, petitioner was served a charge sheet for the alleged misconduct committed by him during the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 alongwith statement of allegations under rule 7 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1961 (for short, 'the Rules, 1961) and his post retiral benefits had been withheld. He moved the authorities and the Additional Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 19.12.96 (Annex. 12) directed the Vikas Adhikari to prepare the pension case of the petitioner, but the same have also not been paid.(3). The charge sheet has been challenged on the ground that the same has been issued by the Vikas Adhikari, respondent No. 5, who had no com...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: [2004]120CompCas793(Raj)
AR. Lakshmanan C. J.1. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. is the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers ;(i) to quash the order dated October 13, 2000, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby the appeal has been entertained by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, and notices have been issued for summoning the parties ;(ii) to declare that the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order's dated July 5, 2000, and September 6, 2000, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur ;(iii) to quash the entire proceedings of Appeals Nos. 191 of 2000 and 192 of 2000 by holding that no appeal was maintainable against the orders dated July 5, 2000, and September 6, 2000, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, and to restrain the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, from proceeding further in the matte...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Smt. Salma Khan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC534; 2001(1)WLC379; 2001(1)WLN274
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ. 1. Heard Mr. Akbar Khan for the appellants. (2). This Special Appeal is preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 3.5.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing !he Civil Misc. Appeal No. 649/1992 filed by the appellants for setting aside the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')dated 10.9.1992 passed in Claim Petition No. 16/1992 filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein. (3). Before the Tribunal, two contentions were raised. The first contention relates to limitation. The second contention is that the death did not occur on account of accident but as a result of suicide committed by Israr Beg and, therefore, the Tribunal should not have entertained the claim petition and should not have granted any compensation. The very same contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge. The Tribunal framed issues 1 and 4 for consideration. One issue was whether the death wa...
Tag this Judgment!Bashir Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN270
ORDERHon'ble Sharma, J. 1. 'It is necessary for the trial Judge who decides to frame charge after evaluation of material on record, to pass a reasoned order?' This moot question requires consideration in the instant case.(2). Bench of Hon'ble two Judges of the Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. Slate of West Bengal (1), indicated that if the trial court decides to frame charge, there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself, prima facie, shows that the trial Judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. A Magistrate is required to record his reasons for discharging the accused in view of section 239 Cr. P.C., but under section 240 Cr. P.C., there is no such requirement if the Magistrate forms his opinion about framing of charge. Even in a t...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Swami and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj244; 2001(4)WLC574
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. Since all these six writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners have challenged the legality of the Order dated 17-8-2000, passed by the Director, College Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby directions have been given for the amendment of the Constitution of Students Unions of the Govt. Colleges or private colleges whether affiliated or not affiliated with the Universities; or whether receiving grant-in-aid or not receiving grant-in-aid, from the State Govt.3. The Order dated 17-8-2000 specifically provides that in order to bring reforms in the process of election of Students Unions, the Chancellor Co-ordination Committee and the State Govt. have decided toamend the constitution of the Students' Unions of the Colleges governing their colleges. These writ petitions have been filed by the aspirants, who wanted to contest the elections of the...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kilpest India Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC106; 2001(4)WLN322
ORDERMisra, J. 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.4.97, passed by the Joint Director- Agriculture, by which he has disqualified the petitioner from selling insecticides in the State of Rajasthan on the ground that the product of the petitioner-firm is not properly branded and the compound used in the insecticides is not as per the norms fixed by the Department of Agriculture-Government of Rajasthan. This order was passed after a show cause notice was served on the petitioner, who although filed a reply, the same was not reckoned as it was treated time barred since on one occasion, an extension of 10 days time was already granted in favour of the petitioner to file such reply. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Director, Agriculture against the order passed by the Join! Director of Agriculture, but the same was dismissed not on merit but-only on account of the fact that the petitioner had failed to file reply within the prescribed time. The appellate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »