Rajasthan Court February 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.
Ani Alias Hanif and ors. Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and Central ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2103; 2001(2)WLC246; 2002(2)WLN424
ORDER1. Ani alias Hanif, Gani alias Gani Mohd., Babu alias Abdul Guarum and Guddu (petitioners) have sought direction to release them on parole on the ground of marriage of their sisters, in this writ petition. The petitioners in Sessions Case No. 81/84 were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Kota for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, IPC under its judgment dated 2-11-1987 which was set aside by this Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 447/87, but in State appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India maintained their conviction and sentence under its judgment dated 13-1-1997 and in pursuance thereof, they have been undergoing the life imprisonment. Ani has been confined in Open Jail Bharatpur while other petitioner Nos. 2, to 4 in Central Jail Kota.2. The marriage of their sisters namely Riyana and Anjum were said to have been scheduled to 21-7-1999 and 22-7-1999 and in support of this assertion the petitioners had annexed a printed marriag...
Rajkumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN281a
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. In view of judgments in common cause 1991 Cr. L.J. (SC) Page 691 'Balkrishna Pillai and Ors. v. Matha Medical and Ors. : 1955CriLJ1644 Mahendra v. State of Hydrabad 19 Cr.L.J.(Raj.) Page-1079 Bishan Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj'.), proceedings are quashed....
Gopal Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC112; 2000WLC(Raj)UC270
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.6.1996 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows.3. The appellant Gopal Lal Garg was married to the victim Mst. Manju about 12 years back while she was a child aged 10 years. But the 'Gona' took place only 4 years back. (In case of child marriage as per the custom actual marriage is consummated after the ceremony known as 'Gona'). According to the prosecution Mst. Manju was maltreated by the appellant as her parents could not meet the dowry demand.4. It is the case of prosecution that on 5th of July, 1994 P.W. 22 Shankar Lal, SHO, Police Station Kapasan on receiving a wireless message from the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh re...
Smt. Pushpa Dave Vs. Rajasthan High Court
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC761; 2001(2)WLN5
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to consider her case for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 23.7.85 in the light of the decision given by this Court in case of Mohammed Rafie] Khan on 6.9.93 vide S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3486 of 1991 (1) and grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 23.7.85.S.B- Civil Writ Petition No. 3486 of 1991 (supra) was disposed of by Hon'ble Shri G.S. Singhvi, J. on 6.9.1993. The learned Single Judge after perusing the entire record was of the opinion that the Departmental Promotion Committee has acted arbitrarily in making recommendations for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk, and that, it will not be proper to pass any adverse order which would affect other persons who were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition. Learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner therein had been denied fair consideration for promotion by the Departme...
Lrs. of Ganga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC223; 2007(2)WLN10
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Khatri, one of the standing counsel of the respondent Department, is directed to accept notice for the respondent Department. Mr. Goyal to supply copy of the writ petition to Mr. Khatri.2. At the request and by the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard and disposed of today by this order.3. The main contention raised by learned counsel Shri Goyal was that the order of reference passed by Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Kolayat was bad in law and illegal because the said order was passed against a dead person. The present petitioners are legal representatives of deceased Ganga Ram against whom the impugned order at Annex. 2 was passed. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference against a dead person by its order dated 21.12.1999 (Annex. 3). Application under Section 65(2) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act read with Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed before the Board of Revenue, wherein, it was pointed ...
Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLN4
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as Manager of the respondent Cooperative Bank, has challenged in this petition the impugned order of termination dated 26.4.2000 (Annx. 1), whereby his services were terminated as Manager.2. Mr. D.K. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that without affording any opportunity of hearing the impugned order at Annx. 1 was passed, which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the same may be set aside. This submission of Mr. Gaur has no substance because from the impugned order at Annx. 1 it is clear that the petitioner was given enough opportunities to present his case but he has not utilized the opportunities offered to him.3. Mr. Gaur then submitted that the Executive Officer of the respondent Bank had no jurisdiction to terminate his services. He submitted that only authority competent to terminate his services was the Managing Director, therefore, the impugned order at Annx. 1 passed by the Ex...
Pawan Kumar Vs. J.N.V. University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC279; 2007(2)WLN11
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases has held that the High Court should be slow in interfering in education matters, more particularly when the student is debarred from appearing in the exam.2. The petitioner is a law student against whom serious charge was levelled for attempting to use unfair means around 8:30 A. M. during the examination which was held on 24.4.2000 while answering the question paper of Legislation paper II of LL.B. Final Examination 2000.3. These are domestic enquires where there is a little scope of interference by this Court.4. The submission of Mr. Vyas was that though demanded, he was not given that 'parchi' which was tried to be used by him, is of no consequence. There was a scuffle and he was caught red handed. By the impugned order at Ex. 7, a lenient view was taken by the respondent university and cancellation of the examination of 2000 and he was debarred from appearing at any subsequent examination of 2000. In the impugn...
Smt. Nenu Devi and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC32; 2001(2)WLN12
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J.(1). Heard Shri Vijay Bishnoi, counsel for the appellants, Shri R.K. Mehta, counsel for the Insurance Company and Shri B.L. Tinwari alongwith Mr. Rajesh Panwar, counsel for the owner.(2). The claimants aggrieved against the judgment in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 145/1990 dated 4th September, 1991 preferred this special appeal. The S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal was filed by the claimants against the award dated 16.2.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in case no. 37/88. Two appeals were filed before the learned Single Judge, one against the interim award dt. 14.12.1988 and another against the final award d!. 16.2.1990. The Tribunal awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,54,000/- and has made liable the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- and owner and driver were made liable to the extent of Rs. 4000/-. This apportionment was challenged by the Insurance Company.(3). According to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is liab...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC15; 2001(1)WLN733
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.(1) Heard Shri Sanjeev Johari, counsel for the appellant, Shri R.K. Mehta, counsel for respondents No. 10 and 11 and Shri B.L Tinwari alongwith Mr. Rajesh Panwar, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 9.(2). This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. Jodhpur against the order in appeal no. 153/1988 and 205/1988 against the judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dt. 27A1988 passed in claim case no. 119/94 whereby the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 04.000/- together with interesl holding the Insurance Company liable for the entire amount.(3). According to Mr. Johari, the learned Judge while maintaining the quantum of compensation awarded, has increased the rate of interesl from 10% to 12% and has dismissed the appeal of the appellant end since judgment is bad, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.(4). We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge which would show that the policy was a comprehens...
Mangla Jat Vs. Raju
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC195; 2001(1)WLC698
J.C. Verma, J.1. This civil misc. appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.7.1997 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in misc. application by which he had rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. filed in MACT Case No. 400/91.2. The respondents had filed a claim application against the appellants before the MACT, Jaipur which case was transferred to the Court of learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Judge MACT, vide order dated 25.10.1991. It is stated that summons were never served upon the appellants and that they had come to know of the order When his agricultural land was ordered to be auctioned on 5.6.1997 for the amount of the award and On making enquiries, it was found that an ex-parte award had been made on 27.3.1996. Certified copy of the same was obtained which was received on 12.6.1997 and on 16.6.1997, application Under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed supported with an affidavit but the same was dismissed vide impugned order on 30.7.1997. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »