Rajasthan Court August 2000 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.
Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. Lal Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN440
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Division Bench of this court (Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Yadav and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Godara, as his lordship then was) considered the following prima facie substantial and intricate questions as of general importance in these appeals:1. Whether provision for special Appeals can be said to substitute of letters patent after enforcement of the Constitution?2. Whether Special Appeal is maintainable only against those matters which originally originate in the High Court with an avowed object to check and balance?3. Whether provision relating to life of an ordinance enshrined under Government of India Act, 1935 and thereafter under the Constitution are applicable to the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. If so, its effect in. filing Special Appeals after expiry of six months from the date of insurance of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949?4. Whether Special Appeals can be filed under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 even in those procee...
Suresh Soni Vs. R.P.S.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC507; 2001(1)WLN569
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant, who is original petitioner has challenged in this appeal the judgment and order dated 28.10.1999 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition No. 544/96.2. By a brief order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to qualify the examination.3. We have carefully perused the averments made in the petition as well as reply affidavits filed by the respondents.4. It appears that the cut of marks were fixed at 107.27 in general category, whereas, the petitioner secured only 86.51 marks, therefore, he was not called for interview. The petitioner claims to be included in the O.B.C. category.5. It may be stated that, almost similar petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 543/96 challenging the short listing by other persons was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court as stated at the bar by the learned Counsel Shri Mathur.6. Detail reply affidavit is filed to t...
St. Anne's School Society Vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and Anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj422; 2000(2)WLC317; 2000(3)WLN7
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by B. J. Shethna, J. dated 6-10-99 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3556/97, dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the right of the appellant petitioner, much less fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution has not been infringed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur in allotting the land to the second respondent Sri Nakora Parshwanath Jain Mahavidyalaya, Jodhpur. The appellant filed the writ petition on the following prayers :1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction -- I/a. Resolution of the Urban Improvement Trust dated 24-4-1995 (Annex. 11) and the order of allotment dated 12-10-95 (Ann. 12) allotting land to the/Respondent Nakoda Parashwanath Jain Mahavidyalaya and consequential Licence issued to the said Mahavidyalaya be declared to be invalid and quashed.I/b. Respondent Urban Improvement Trust may further be directed to allot the residue 10,200 sqm. of the land out of the plot in que...
Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR779]; (2000)IILLJ1528Raj; 2000(3)WLC236; 2001(1)WLN614
Arun Madan, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 29, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 5309/1995 has been allowed and the Award passed by the learned Labour Court, Kota on November 25, 1993 in LCR No. 95/89 has been set aside.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in nutshell, are that the appellant was working as Conductor on the vehicle of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation'). A charge sheet was issued to the appellant on May 25, 1979 for the allegations inter alia that on May 11, 1979 during surprise checking of vehicle on which he was performing duty as Conductor on Beawar Shyamgarh routes, 23 adult and child passengers were found travelling without tickets. A domestic enquiry was conducted. In his report, the enquiry officer held the charges proved against the appellant. Considering the enquiry report, the respondent Corporation terminated the services of the appellant by ...
Janaki Vallab Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ738Raj; 2000(3)WLN1
A.C. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The petitioner entered the Judicial Service of the State of Rajasthan in the year 1972. He was promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and then as Chief Judicial Magistrate. Later, he was appointed to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service by way of promotion under order dated August 30, 1988. The promotion was given to him on officiating basis under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969. By order dated May 19, 1990 Super-Time Scale was allowed to the petitioner in the RJS cadre with effect from August 13, 1987 and by order dated June 25, 1999 the petitioner was appointed substantively in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service under Annexure-1. The petitioner was served with order dated February 8, 2000 from the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, whereby His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan ordered for retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from...
Mangiya and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4814; 2000(4)WLC595; 2001(1)WLN546
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentenced passed on 31 -1 -86 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 85/85, which is as under, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal :-Mangiya convicted Under Section 376, I.P.C.Sentence - 5 years rigorous imprisonment & Rs. 200/- fine, in default 2 months' simple imprisonment.Bhojiya convicted Under Section 376/114, I.P.C.Sentence - 5 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 200/- fine, in default 2 months' simple imprisonment.Laxman convicted Under Section 376/114, I.P.C.Sentence - 5 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 200/- fine, in default 2 months' simple imprisonment.Smt. Lali convicted Under Section 366, 376/114, I.P.C.Sentence - Under Section 366 - 3 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 200/- fine, in default 2 months' simple imprisonment.Under Section 376/114 - 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default 2 months' s...
Girdhari Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC248; 2001(1)WLN96
B.J. Shethna, J.1. All these three petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order as the common question of law is arising in all these petitions.2. By an order dated 24.7.1997, Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chouhan, J. referred all these matters to the larger Bench for deciding a question as to whether the cases which ar pending since 1985 can be dismissed or not on the ground of alternative remedy available to them before the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal?3. Petition filed by Girdhari Lal has become infructuous in view of the fact that he is already retired from service during the pendency of this petition. However, for rest of the petitioners, their matters are required to be decided.4. In case of Himmat Lal v. State of M.P. reported in : [1954]1SCR1122 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where there is a statutory alternative remedy available then in such cases the High Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction. The same view was continuously followed by the Sup...
Shyam Sunder Mal Vs. Rajasthan High Court
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC4; 2007(2)WLN584
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is against the order dated 8th December, 1997 which disposed of the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner by directing the respondents to decide the question of grant of selection scale which was pending before the respondent No. 1 for long, within three months from the date of receipt of the order.2. The grievance of the petitioner in this appeal is that as recorded by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner had asked for three reliefs but the aforesaid order, only disposed of third relief but no order has been passed by the learned Single Judge in respect of other two reliefs. To three reliefs prayed by the petitioner in the writ petition are as under:(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the part of order dated 22.3.1997 (Annexure 6) whereby a sum of Rs. 24,964 has already been recovered be quashed.(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent may kindly be directed to make full payment of suspension period i.e. 28.7.1990 ...
Rashtra Unnati Vidhyalaya Vs. Nathmal Chandok
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC96; 2001(1)WLN390
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Heard Mr. Prakash Tatia, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.R. Nagori, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal arises out of the money suit filed in the year 1957 and decreed in the year 1960. In execution, the subject property of the judgment debtor was attached on 21.2.1970 and sold to respondent Nathmal in auction for a sum of Rs. 16,500/-. The respondent purchaser was put in possession of the subject property on 28.7.1977 by the order of the executing Court dated 25.7.1977. The appellant Rashtra Unnati Vidhyalaya claiming itself to be an educational institution filed an application under Section 151, Order 21 Rules 99 and 100 C.P.C. for restoration of the possession on the ground that it was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises in July, 1977. The learned District Judge, Bikaner by order dated 10.8.1977 rejected the application having found that on applicant's own saying, its induction was after the attachment of the property and the lea...
Hiralal Loonkaransar Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC197; 2001(1)WLN93
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. None present for the respondent.3. The petitioner challenges the order of Board of Revenue dt. 18.9.1990 (Annexure-6) and order of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Chhatargarh dt. 13.2.1985 (Annexure-4) by which land in question which is a part of Muraba No. 51/38 of Chak No. 14 LKD was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 4 Bhagirath.4. The brief facts necessary for the present purposes are that in the first instance by order dt. 27.4.1983 13 bighas 8 biswas land was allotted in favour of Bhagirath as a land-less person. Out of these land 5 bighas 14 biswas land in command area and 7 bighas and 14 biswas land in uncommand area. On 27th March, 1984 said Bhagirath Singh applied for being land less person and has been allotted land less than the measurement of land which he is entitled held additional allotment in favour of additional can be made whose land in dispute measuring 8 bighas w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »