Rajasthan Court August 2000 Judgments
Bhanwarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ620
1. The abovenamed accused appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1999 passed by the learned Judge. Special Court, SC/ST (Prevenion of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 117/98 by which he convicted accused appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month RI.2. The foots giving rise to this appeal in short, are as follows :-PW6 Kamku on 16-6-1998 at about 3.00 PM lodged a report Ex. D/2 before PW8 Kishore Singh, SHO Police Station Luni. District Jodhpur inter-alia stating that on 15 of 1998 at about 3.00 PM when she was coming from the field lonely, on the way, accused appellant met her and as soon as she passed the Dhani of Meghwal, accused appellant pursued her on his cycle and, thereafter, he surrounded her and insisted upon to go to his Dhani and on refusal by her, he followed her. It is further alleged that as ...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Bohra Vs. Suresh Kumar Hawa and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC635
Madan, J.(1) This special appeal arises out of two judgments cum orders dated 8.1,96 and 10.4.97 passed by the learned Single Judge. First one was passed allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.818/79 of Suresh Kumar Hawa (respondent No.3) and remanding the matter to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal to examine the record and to see whether the procedure as prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (for short, 'Absorption Rules') has been followed or not, and, therefore, the judgment dated 23.8.79 of the Tribunal in appeal filed by the present appellant against publication of final seniority list cum order dated 23.8.79 was set aside. Second order dated 10.4.97 under challenge in this special appeal was passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the review petition as time barred. The review petition was filed on 21.3.1996 against order dated 8.1.96.(2). Civil Writ Petition No.818/79 was preferred by Suresh Kumar Hawa chal...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC575; 2001(1)WLN299
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). This petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed on 1.1.98 (Annex. 6) in O.A. No. 140/94.(3). The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was in occupation of the Government premises white in service of the Railways. The petitioner retired from service on 30.11.85 from the post of Junior Head Shroff. At that time he was in occupation of Railway Quarter No. T-177. B at Railway D.S. Colony, Jodhpur, however he did not vacate the same and therefore proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971').(4). The Estate Officer, Northern Railway Jodhpur, made an order on 17.3.88 for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises which has been produced at Annex. 1. The Estate Officer vide Annex. 1 determined that the petitioner is ...
Tag this Judgment!Paramjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ757; 2001(4)WLC326; 2001(1)WLN43
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 9-3-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 27/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant in the following manner :-Name of accused offence u/s sentence awardedParamjeet Singh 394 IPC Four Years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month S.I. 397/34 IPC Seven years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows :-On 10-3-1998 at about 4.30 p.m. PW3 Ved Prakash gave a Parcha-bayan, Ex. P/9 while he was in Hospital, to PW6 Phularam stating that he has a Maruti Car bering No. DBD 4559, Taxi (hereinafter referred to as the Taxi) and on 9-3-1998 at about 9.30 p.m. when he was standing at the Taxi Stand of Abhor (Haryana), two persons came...
Tag this Judgment!Ladu Ram Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2000
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN80
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The facts giving rise to this petition, by one Ladu Ram S/o Jiya Ram challening the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 8th March 1995 and order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28th March 1987 Annx. 3 & Annx. 1 respectively, may be summarised as under.3. The land in a joint Khata was held by two brothers Ramu Ram and Raju Ram, Ramu Ram had three sons; Bhagirath, Phusa Ram and Dalu Ram, Bhagirath's sons are respondents No. 4 to 6, Phusa Ram's sons are respondents No. 7 to 10 and Dalu Ram's sons in the present petition are respondents No. 15 to 18. Raju Ram had only one son Jiya Ram. Jiya Ram had two sons Uda Ram and Ladu Ram. The said land was partitioned by a decree passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Suratgarh on 23.8.1976 in Suit No. 12/1972 under which sons of Dalu Ram, who are respondents No. 15 to 18 in this petition, were, allotted 42 bighas and 14 biswas of land in their share comprised in Murab...
Tag this Judgment!Lalu and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC534; 2001(1)WLN315
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The above-named accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.6.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 101/98 by which he convicted both the accused appellants under section 304 Part 11/34 IPC and sentenced , each of them to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year Simple Imprisonment.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows:--On 25.1.1997 at about 5.30 PM. PW 2 Narain Singh lodged an oral report before PW 14 Heeralal, S.H.O. Police Station Bijaypur District Chittorgarh stating inter-alia that when he was working at about 2.30 PM outside the Khala, then Bheel women and men belonging to Rajpuria came there and infront of them, accused Lalu was going and at that time he was under the superficial control of divine power and after about half hour, PW7 Udda Bheel, w...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Bhansali Vs. State of Rajesthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC590; 2007(3)WLN521
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to respondents to fill up the vacancies of Engineers as per the eligibility on the date of initial advertisement dated 18.1.1997.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission') advertised 444 posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Public Works Department (B & R), Irrigation and Public Health & Engineering Department under the provisions of the Rajasthan State Engineering Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1954. The last date for submitting the application, as per the said advertisement, had been 15.3.1997. The said Rules stood amended vide order dated 22.1.1997 providing for horizontal reservation in favour of woman candidates. A corrigendum was issued by the Commission on 10.2.1997 to give effect to the said amendment dated 22.1.1997. The result of the examination was declared...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanni Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC639; [2001(88)FLR732]; (2001)IIILLJ263Raj; 2000WLC(Raj)UC747
J.C. Verma, J.1. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the appeal can be decided today itself. Therefore, arguments have been heard finally.2. The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the order dated March 31, 1998 passed the authority appointed under Workmen Compensation Act, Beawar in the application No. 51/96 filed by Smt. Dhanni Devi mother of deceased-workman Sarwan Kumar.3. The Commissioner had awarded an amount of Rs. 2,21,370/- as per schedule and statutory calculation providing under the Workmen's Compensation Act. One Sarwan Kumar had died while on duty in the accident occurred on November 20, 1996 at 7.30 pm when he was driving the jeep No. RJ-01/T-0024. The application for claim had been filed by mother of the workman. The deceased was of the age of 22 years and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. The appellant was made party being insurer of the vehicle. The accident was admitted. On the evidence produced by parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Singh Vs. the Rajasthan High Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC752; 2001(1)WLN630
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Mr. P.S. Bhati, learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Hon. Palshikar, J. dated 4th August, 2000 in SBCW Pet. No. 2661/2000 rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that he is entitled to contest, as the Head Legal Assistant working in the Government Advocate Office, is a Law Officer.3. The appellant, at present is working in the Government Advocate's Office at Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. He is also working as a part-time Lecturer in the Academic Sessions 1999-2000 at the Law Faculty of Jai Narain Vyas Unversity, Jodhpur. It is also his case that he regularly made appearance before the Dy. Registrar of this Court and other Tribunals. He submitted his application form for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) and the same was rejected on the ground that he was not enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council vide letter dated 18.7.2000. According to the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ91; 2001(2)WLN91
ORDERGARG, J. 1. The above-named accused appellant has preferred the appeal No. 543/1995 against the judgment and order dated 17.10.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 40/94 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sec. 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years' Rigorours Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Note:- That accused appellant has earlier preferred S.B.Cr. Jail Appeal No. 494/95 against the same judgment and order and since regular appeal has been filed by him being S.B.Cr. Appeal No. 543/95 and the same is being represented by counsel, judgment is being passed in the main appeal and the jail appeal has been ordered to be tagged with the main appeal. 2. That this Court vide order dt. 15.1.96 issued suo moto notice u/Sec. 397 Cr.P.C. asking the accused appellant to show cause why the punishment of seven ye...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »