Rajasthan Court May 2000 Judgments
Pana Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3627; 2000(3)WLC68
ORDER1. The say of the petitioner is that his brother Bheru Lal convict having undergone a sentence of 9 years has not been granted parole as yet though under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'), he is entitled to be released on parole. It is stated that the marriage of the petitioner is fixed on 12-5-2000 and therefore, Bheru Lal should be released on parole.2. In the return, the case set up by the respondents is that Bheru Lal being a convict for the offence under Sections 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, he is not entitled for the grant of parole.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have considered the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 as also the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act.4. The relevant facts are these. Bheru Lal was arrested on 24-8-1992 for the offence under Sections 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He was convicted by the competent Court vide judgment dated 18-6-1993. His Appeal No. 238 93 has been dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN574
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.11.1999 (Annx. 8) passed by the Government issuing directions to make appointments as per the directions contained therein. The said impugned order dated 25.11.1999 has also been challenged by other petitioners by way of filing separate writ petitions. Some petitions have been filed challenging the discriminatory attitude of the respondents while implementing the order dated 25.11.1999. Particulars of all petitions have been furnished in the Schedule annexed to this judgment. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, all the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment taking the instant Petition as the leading case.'2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent No. 3 advertised 222 posts of Teachers Grade III, vide Advertisement dated 15.6.1998 (Annx. 1), inviting applications from the eligible candidates. Posts had to be filled up as per the p...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Surgyan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC677; 2000(3)WLC632
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 12.2.1999 passed by the learned MACT, Dausa whereby, the award of Rs. 3,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% has been passed in favour of the respondents-claimants.2. In the matters of Shankarayya and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. : AIR1998SC2968 and Narendra Kumar and Anr. v. Yarenissa and Ors. : (1998)9SCC202 the Apex Court held that Insurance Company can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the condition precedent as mentioned in Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are complied with and then Insurance Company has obtained an order in writing from the Tribunal and it should be a reasoned order. Other wise, the Insurance Company cannot have wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been in a position to state as to how his plea woul...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anni Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC769; 2000(3)WLN436
ORDERShethna, J.1. The petitioner, who is a lady belonging to O.B.C. has challenged in this petition the impugned letter/order dated 29.9.93 (Annex.7). The land in question was initially auctioned on 9.12.87 wherein the petitioner's bid of Rs. 18, 100/- was found to be highest which was accepted by the respondent authority by a letter dated 9.12.87 (Annex. 2). 1/4th of the total amount i.e. Rs. 4526/- was immediately deposited on 9.12.87 itself. The receipt dated 9.12.87 is at Annex. 3. The remaining 3/4th amount of Rs. 13,575/- was also deposited on 6.2.89 vide challan at Annex. 4 as desired by the respondents. Surprisingly, after a period of four years, all of a sudden, the respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner by letter dated 1.2.93 (Annex.5) that he propose to re-auction the said land. Somehow or the other that was not materialised. Thereafter on 7.3.93, the petitioner made representation (Annex.6) to the respondents no. 3 and 4 for issuing the sale certificate in respect of the...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Pal Singh Tt Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC257
V.S. Kokje, Actg. CJ.1. The appellant Surendra Pal Singh TT was nominated Director and Chairman of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). He was nominated as Director in place of the earlier Incumbent of the office Shri Ramnath Verma, as a representative of the producers of agricultural products. In the appointment order dated 25-6-1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) It was stated that the term of office would be three years from the date of appointment as per the Rules. On 31 -12-1998, the State Government nominated Shri N. R. Bhasin, Principal Secretary to Government of Rajasthan, Agriculture Department, as the Director and Chairman of the Board of Director of the Corporation in place of the petitioner Surendra Pal Singh TT. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order dated 31-12-1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by which Shri N. R. Bhasin was nominated Director and Chairman...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Gandhi and ors. Vs. Aravali Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC643; 2000(3)WLN78
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. What is required to be considered, while applying the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' for the purpose of promotion? This is the common question which falls for consideration in all these five writ petitions.2. The petitioners have been working on the post of Officer in the respondent Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank. On October, 5, 1993 seniority list of officers came to be published wherein the petitioners were assigned seniority as under-Ravindra Singh at Serial No. 1Rajendra Mohan Sharma at Serial No. 2Rajan Gandhi at Serial No. 3Prakash Chandra at Serial No. 7Ram Niwas Bairwa (SC) at Serial No. 303. The respondent officers were placed in the said seniority list thus-P.C. Jain at Serial No. 4C.S. Pancholi at Serial No. 13R.L. Agarwal at Serial No. 24C.S. Sharma at Serial No. 25Shantilal Tailor at Serial No. 27K.L. Jatava at Serial No. 324. In exercise of the, powers conferred by Section 29 read with Section 17 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976' the Central...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Badri Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2000
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN551
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The matter comes up for consideration of stay application. However, with the consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard. The record of she courts below was summoned but the record of the Appellate Court has only been received while that of trial court has not been received. In my view for the disposal of the revision the record of the trial court need not be awaited.2. By the impugned order the learned lower Appellate Court has set aside, the order of the learned trial court dismissing the plaintiffs application for injunction and has granted interim injunction to the effect that pending disposal of the suit, the defendants No. 1 to 3 shall not forcibly dispossess the plaintiff and shall maintain status quo of the suit property.3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a tenant on the suit premises and has been regularly paying rent from time to time, he was served with a notice by the defendant No.3 on 19.6.1984 calling him upon to leave possession, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Nisar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC170; 2000(2)WLN309
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner submitted an application for plot No. 412 before the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, which was accepted by an order dated 28.4.1998 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 3. Mining Engineer, Jodhpur. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited Rs. 2625/- on 2.5.1998 (Annex. 2). However, he was not issued required licence and instead of that he received an order dated 19.5.1998 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby, the earlier order dated 28.4.1998 (Annex. 1) was cancelled.2. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. Director, Mines and Geology Department, Jodhpur which was allowed on 24.7.1998 (Annex. 4) and the case was remanded to the Mining Engineer. In spite of the remand order the Mining Engineer did not issue licence in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Govt. which was dismissed by an order dated 27.7.1999 (Annex. 5).3. Surprisingly, the petitioner has prayed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kartar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj284
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the suspension order dated 6-1-2000 (Annexure P/4) passed under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. 1959 (for short, 'the Act') by the State Government against the petitioner the Chairman of Municipal Board, Gulabpura.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was elected as a Member and subsequently the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Gulabpura (district Bhilwara) in August, 1995. He was issued a show cause notice dated 17-7-1999 (Annexure P/1) under Section 63 of the Act calling upon him to furnish his explanation with respect to allegations mentioned therein. The said allegations reveal that there was a gross negligence on the part of the petitioner in collecting the octroi on certain material at the prescribed rate; secondly, misuse of funds in making payment of telephone bills; and thirdly, misuse of funds in repairing of the official car. Petitioner submitte...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Manbani Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN427
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.5.1980 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara convicting the appellant Sharvan Singh of offence u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a find of Rs. 200/- in default of payment to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted for the offence u/s 201 I.P.C.2. The prosecution case as set out during the trial is that the accused Sharwan Singh (herein after referred to as the appellant) lodged a first information report at P.S. Mandal on 01.12.1979 at 9.00 A.M. stating inter alia that he was a second driver on truck No. PUI 8992 alongwith first driver deceased Avtar Singh. At about 3:15 A.M. on a call of a girl the first driver of the truck Avtar Singh got down from the truck and proceeded towards her. He did not return for about 20 minutes inspite of horn given by him. Suspecting some foul, he awaked Mukhtiar Singh, Khalasi of the truck. In the morning he ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »