Rajasthan Court November 2001 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.
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC168; 2002(4)WLN35
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 16.5.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 25/1994 by which he acquitted the accused respondent of the charge for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and another accused Om Prakash of the charge for the offence under Section 376/34 I.P.C.2. It may be stated here that though the learned Sessions Judge acquitted two accused persons, but this Court vide order dated 2.5.1997 granted leave to appeal to the State of Rajasthan only against the present accused respondent Kalu Ram.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:On 5.5.1992 at about 9.00 AM, PW-3 Sohanlal lodged a report Ex.P/3 with the Police Station, Degana District Nagaur stating inter-alia that on 4.5.1992 at about 7.30/8.00 PM, his wife Chouthi, PW-6 (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) was coming to Choukha-Ki-Dhani from Chudiyawas after grinding the whe...
All India Itdc Employees Union Vs. Employees State Insurance Corp.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN107
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 5.5,99 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by All India I.T.D.C. Employees Union challenging the notification issued by Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel on 30.1.97 (Annex.P/7) informing its employees that in terms of the amendment made in the provisions of the Employees State Insurance act vide notification dated 23.12.96 which became effective from 1.1.97, its provisions shall be made applicable to those employees with effect from 1.1.97 who were drawing monthly salary upto Rs. 6,500/- which limit was earlier upto Rs. 3,000/-and deduction on account of employee's contribution towards the Employees State Insurance was increased from 1.5% to 1.75%. So also, the employer's contribution was increased from 4% to 4.75%. With this notification, it was required of those employees who were drawing salary upto Rs. 6,500/- to secure new insurance cards af...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Balaji Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN586
Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The respondent-petitioner was granted permission to construct over the land in question. The petitioner had purchased the land in question from the Receiver of M/s. Daduwala and Co, it is situated in Bhilwara. He sought permission for construction from Commissioner. The permission was granted by the Commissioner of Municipality in terms of Section 170 of the Municipalities Act, 1959. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by Notification dated 24th Nov., 1976 the Commissioner was delegated power to exercise the authority of the Board under Section 170 of the Act in the matter of granting permission and he was, therefore, duly competent to grant such permission.3. It appears that at the relevant time, the elected body of Municipal Council. Bhilwara was superseded and its administration was put under an Administrator. The Administrator by his order dated 27-6-88 in purported exercise of his powers under Section 311 of the Act....
All India I.T.D.C. Employees Union Vs. Employees State Insurance Corp. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR869]; (2002)IIILLJ917Raj; RLW2003(1)Raj25
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 5.5.99 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by All India I.T.D.C. Employees Union challenging the notification issued by Laxmi Villas Palace Hotel on 30.1.97 (Annex. P/7) informing its employees that in terms of the amendment made in the provisions that in terms of the amendment made in the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act vide notification dated 23.12.96 which became effective with effect from 1.1.97, its provisions shall be made applicable to those employees with effect from 1.1.97 who were drawing monthly salary upto Rs. 6,500/- which limit was earlier upto Rs. 3,000/- and deduction on account of employee's contribution towards the Employees State Insurance was increased from 1.5% to 1.75%. So also, the employer's contribution was increased from 4.75% with this notification, it was required of those employees who were dr...
Rania Vs. Jagdish Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: AIR2003Raj72; 2002WLC(Raj)UC283
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has committed serious illegality in granting injunction order against the true owner. According to learned counsel for the appellant the agreement alleged by the respondent is forged one and the respondent forcibly took over possession for which a criminal case was registered and challan was filed under Section 427 and 447. IPC and it was also submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the agreement, which was alleged to have been executed on 30th April, 1997 was never shown to have been acted upon by the plaintiff. It is also submitted by allegation of giving Rs. 14,90,000/- by the defendant-respondent is also absolutely false allegation of fact and, therefore, the trial Court should not have granted any injunction against the appellant, the true owner. This is nothing but giving premium to the trespasser. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemen...
Bhagwan Singh and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj360; 2002(1)WLC554
Naolekar, J.1. Admittedly, in above noted appeals, the petitioner-appellants ('appellants' herein) were appointed as Conductors, after due selection, in respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the respondent Corporation'). The respondent Corporation invited options from the appellants to be posted on the post of Booking Clerk, as per the settlement arrived at between the Rajasthan State Roadways Employees Union (Etak) (for short 'the Union') and the respondent Corporation. The appellants were posted on the post of Booking Clerk. At the time of issuance of the impugned order dated 21.10.2000 (annexed with writ petitions) whereby the appellants have been posted as Conductors on transfer, they were discharging duties on the post of Booking Clerk. As per the appellants, the post of Booking Clerk is a different cadre post then that of a Conductor. By virtue of the settlement arrived at between the Union and the respondent Corporation on 22.3.1979 and approved by th...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Vinod
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1308
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 25-4-1988 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Churu by which the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondent for offence under Section 457, I.P.C.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances :i) On 14-1-1985 at 1.15 a.m. P.W. 3 Charandas lodged an oral report with the police station, Churu stating that in the night of 13-14-1-1985, he was sleeping in his house situated in Ward No. 8 Churu and his son Dharam Pal, P.W. 2 and his wife P.W. 4 Shakuntala were also sleeping in their Kotha. At about 12.30, the accused-respondent after jumping the wall entered the room in which P.W. 2 Dharampal was sleeping along with his wife P.W. 4 Shakuntala and seeing him P.W. 2 Dharampal and P.W. 4 Shakuntala made hue and cry and hearing their cries, he came to that room and P.W. 5 Unkar Mal and P.W. 1 Kewal Ram also came there and accused-respondent w...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. R.A.A.O. Association and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN357
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. All the four appeals impugn the order dated April 26, 1997 of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the respondent Rajasthan Assistant Accounts Officers Association (for short RAAO) was allowed and the appellant State of Rajasthan was directed to convene the review D.P.C. for determining the yearwise vancancies which had fallen due in the Rajasthan Accounts Service in the quota of direct recruits as well as promotees for the period 1992-93 and onwards.2. The RAAO submitted a writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court with the prayer that the State of Rajasthan be directed to strictly adhere to the proportion in between the direct recruitees and promotees prescribed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Accounts Service) Rules, 1954 (for short the 1954 Rules) and the vacancies of the year 1992-93 be apportioned in the ratio prevailing at that time keeping in view the over all number of posts already filled in from junior scale to supertime sca...
Madho Singh and anr. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1694; 2003(2)WLN112
B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.9.2001 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No. 1 under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC') appointing respondent No. 3 as a Special Public Prosecutor on the application of respondent No. 2-complainant in a criminal case.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioners are facing criminal trial for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC etc. The respondent No. 2-complainant (brother of the deceased) filed an application before the respondent No. 1 that Public Prosecutor in the Sessions Court would not be able to conduct the trial for being very busy and hence the State should appoint respondent No. 3 as Special Public Prosecutor on this expenses. Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 13.9.2001 (Annex.1) appointing respondent No. 3 as a Special Public Prosecutor. Petitioners filed an a...
Kuna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC469; 2003(1)WLN693
Mathur, J. 1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to restrain the respondent Superintendent of Police, Nagaur and the S.H.O., Police Station, Rot not to open the 'History Sheet' against the petitioner. Petitioner claims to be a reputed person of village Awat and agriculturist by profession. It is alleged that the police is opening a 'History Sheet' against him at the instance of Bhura Ram, Ram Nath and Roop Ram with whom he has political rivalry. A counter affidavit has been filed by Dr. Pyarelal Shivaran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jayal, giving instances of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 2. Having perused the memo of petition and the counter affidavit, I am satisfied that it is not a case, which calls for judicial intervention. To maintain a 'History Sheet', is a part of the criminal administration. The Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 under Rule 2.6 under Chapter 11 cast a duty on th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »