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. Gyaneshwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1312
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-9-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 21/96 (72/93) by which he acquitted the accused respondents of the charges for the offence under Section 304B and 498A, IPC.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :On 22-3-1993 at about 4.15 p.m. the accused respondent No. 1 Gyneshwar, who is husband of Suman (hereinafter referred to as decease) gave statement before the Police Station Nayasahar District Bikaner stating inter alia that he was married with the deceased on 28-6-1991 and since then, deceased was living with him and in his house, his father and mother also used to live with him. It was further stated by the accused respondent No. 1 Gyaneshwar that before the alleged incident, deceased asked him that he should take food along with her. On the fateful day i.e. on 22-3-1993, his friend Ra...
Gokul Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC97
Calla, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.4.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition was dismissed.2. The appellant, who was original petitioner before the learned Single Judge (shall be referred to as petitioner hereinafter) claiming to be a graduate, was holding the post of Asstt. Sub Inspector since June, 1988 and had also been confirmed on the said post later on. The said post is a post under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1989) a post created under the Rules of 1989. Prior to his promotion as Asstt. Sub Inspector, he was a confirmed Head Constable under the Rules in force. Head Constable is a post in the channel of promotion for further promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and still next higher post is that of Inspector for which the Sub-Inspector is the next lower post in the channel of ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shanker Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj320; 2002(4)WLN561
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.11.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Session Case No. 25/87 by which he acquitted the accused respondent of the charges for the offence under Section 17 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act').2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 24.2.1987, PW 8 Jeevan Ram, SHO, Police Station Bhinrnal lodged a report in the Rojnamcha of that Police Station stating inter-alia that he received a secret information from mukhbir to the effect that Shankerlal (present accused respondent) was illegally doing the business of heroin and he was having heroin and on receiving that information from mukhbir, he alongwith CO, Bhinmal, Sl Madho Singh, Head Constable Megh Singh (PW 7) and other police officialsand two motbirs PW 4 jaggararn and PW 5 Jodha proceeded towards the ho...
Kedar Nath Through L.Rs. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC571
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Shri R.K. Mathur for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 3.11.1997 confirming the majorpenalty/punishment imposed on the petitioner Kedar Nath. Vide Annexure-5, the order dated 26.11.1985 a penalty of removal from service was imposed. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner challenged the order of punishment dated 26.11.1985 and the order dated 16.12.1994, rejecting his appeal filed against the order of punishment with the prayer that the above orders be declared as illegal and the same may be quashed with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal vide impugned order, rejected the prayer madr by the petitioner made in the Original Application. 3. Shri R.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had fallen into serious error in upholding the order dated 16.12.1994 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal ...
Rakesh Sharma Vs. Surbhi Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj138; 2002(1)WLC717
A.C. Goyal, J. 1. Both these appeals have been filed by the husband and wife respectively challenging the judgment and decree dated 18-8-1998 passed by learned Judge, family Court. Ajmer in matrimonial case No. 277/97. Rakesh Sharma v. Surbhi Sharma. The learned Judge while allowing the application of the husband passed the decree of judicial separation Instead of decree of divorce in favour of the husband and against the wife.2. The applicant husband Rakesh Sharma has filed appeal No. 281/2000 with a prayer that a decree of divorce instead of judicial separation should be passed in his favour while the wife Smt. Surbhi Sharma has challenged by tiling appeal No. 411/2000. all the findings along with the above judgment and decree. We shall refer the parties in this judgment as husband and wife.3. The facts in brief are that the applicant Rakesh Sharma was married to Smt. Surbhi Sharma on 11-2-1989 at Ajmer according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. A son was born out of this wedlock on 23-7-...
Nemichand Kajala Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1994
Keshote, J.1. In this second stay application, the petitioner has prayed for the stay of the operation of the order dated 23.10.2001 and letter of intent issued to respondent No.3 till disposal of the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The dispute between the parties in the petition pertains to the grant of retail outlet dealership of the Hindustan Petroleum Limited at the disputed site.4. The Oil Selection Board has found the respondent No. 3 to be meritorious fro this allotment of retail outlet dealership. Accordingly in pursuance of recommendations of the Oil Selection Board the company has given this dealership to the respondent No. 3 and now as per the petitioner's case letter of intent has also been issued to the grantee.5. The petitioner's case is that he should have been granted this retail outlet dealership. In the matter of grant of retail outlet dealership for the sale of petroleum products the public interest is also a fact which is to be taken note o...
Rakesh Sharma and ors. Vs. Surbhi Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC666; RLW2003(1)Raj338
Goyal, J. 1. Both these appeals have been filed by the husband and wife respectively challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1998 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in matrimonial case No. 277/97, Rakesh Sharma v. Surbhi Sharma. The learned Judge while allowing the application of the husband passed the decree of judicial separation instead of decree of divorce in favour of the husband and against the wife. 2. The applicant husband Rakesh Sharma has filed appeal No. 281/2000 with a prayer that a decree of divorce instead of judicial separation should be passed in his favour while the wife Smt. Surbhi Sharma has challenged by filing appeal No. 411/2000, all the findings alongwith the above judgment and decree. We shall refer the parties in this judgment as husband and wife. 3. The facts in brief are that the applicant Rakesh Sharma was married to Smt. Surbhi Sharma on 11.2.1989 at Ajmer according to Hundu Rites and Rituals. A son was born out of this wedlock on 23.7.1992...
Santosh Kanwar and ors. Vs. Surgyan Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1588; 2002(4)WLN47
Joshi, J.1. This revision has been directed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 29.5.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Merta in Election Petition No. 16/2000, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC was rejected. Another application filed by the revisionist-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also rejected by the same order. However, the order rejecting the application under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC has been challenged before this Court.2. Notices were issued to the non-petitioners. The notices were served on the non-petitioners No. 1 2, 4 and 5. Mr. J.R. Patel appeared on behalf of non-petitioners No. 1 and 2. Non-petitioner No. 3 was not served, but a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. J.R. Patel about the maintainability of the revision petition, therefore, no notice was issued to the non-petitioner No. 3.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties nd perused the recorded. It was argued by Mr. J.R. Patel, learned counsel for ...
Pankaj Kachhawah Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC40; 2002(4)WLN684
Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd August, 2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The petition has been dismissed with reference to earlier decision of this Court in Jyotsna v. State of Raiasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1626/1996).3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the decision in Jyotsna's case has little relevance to the facts of the present case and in our opinion rightly so. Jyotsna's case has been decided on the basis that during the pendency of the writ petition it was directed that the petitioner be considered for selection and the result be withheld. Thus, under the directions of the Court, her case was considered. This led to calling of the result of the candidate and after observing the result, the Court found that as per the result she cannot get the relief. In that view of the matter, the petition was rejected not on merit but ...
Pankaj Kachhawah Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1482
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd August, 2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The petition has been dismissed with reference to earlier decision of this Court in Jyotsna v. State of Rajasthan (1).3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the decision in Jyotsna's case has little relevance to the facts of the present case and in our opinion rightly so. Jyotsna's case has been decided on the basis that during the pendency of the writ petition it was directed that the petitioner be considered for selection and the result be withheld. Thus, under the directions of the Court, her case was considered. This led to calling of the result of the candidate and after observing the result, the Court found that as per the result she cannot get the relief. In that view of the matter, the petition was rejected not no merit but because the issue has become academic ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »