Rajasthan Court April 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.
Director Rural Development and Another Vs. Miss Jayanti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC320; 2001(4)WLN1
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J. (1) Heard counsel for the parlies at length.(2). These Special Appeals have been filed against the order dated 26.2.2001,passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1646/2000 and other connected cases. Since the factual aspect and law involved in all the cases was common, therefore, the learned Single Judge disposed of all the writ petitions by a common order.(3). The question raised in these cases is whether it is in order to give five bonus marks to the candidates, who are resident of rural area of a particulars district and ten bonus marks to the candidates, who are resident of particular districl for which posts are advertised. In these cases merit list was prepared giving the aforesaid bonus marks to the candidates eligibfe for those bonus marks and some of the candidates were also given appointment on the basis of the merit list prepared.(4). The susiainability of the above provisions in the State Circular was questioned in the above b...
Subhash Sikhwal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC646; 2002(1)WLC684; 2001(4)WLN670
Shethna, J.1. Notice to the respondents.2. The respondent No.2 is Special Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, who is a formal party. He should not have been joined as party respondent as per the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent No. 1.3. Learned P.P. Mr. Ramesh Purohit accepts notice for the respondent No.l State of Rajasthan.4. At the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and disposed of today itself.5. The petitioner is the husband who was married to one Anuradha Sikhwal on 9.3.96 at Udaipur. Thereafter on 11.2.97, son Chandraker was born at their place.6. It is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted one application to the learned Judge of Family Court, Udaipur for D.N.A. test of his son Chandrakar way back in 1999 but for some or the other reason, the learned Judge has so far not decided the same. Therefore, by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. it is praye...
Rekha Ram Through His Legal Representatives Vs. Board of Revenue and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC240; 2002(1)WLN354
Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for setting aside the judgments and orders dated 24.4.85 passed by the trial Court and 19.1.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue and for up-holding and restoring the judgment and order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 27.5.93.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondents No.5, 5/1 and 16, who are the sons and widow of Deepa Ram, filed Suit No. 50/79 in the Court of the Assistant Collector under Section 53 and 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955') for partition. The total land involved in the case was 81 Bighas and they claimed 1/3 share in the property and also restoration of possession, on the said land. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated 24.4.85 (Annx. 1). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the defendant-respondents approached the Appellate Authority, which allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 27.5.93 (Annx. 2), against which...
Sunil @ Surendra Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC549; 2001(4)WLN204
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant, who is in jail, against the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 18/2000, by which he acquitted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 326/34 and 324/34, but convicted him for the offence under Sections 392 read with Section 397 IPC, 307, 326 and 324 IPC and sentenced in the following manner--________________________________________________________________________Name of accused Convicted Sentence awarded appellant under Section ________________________________________________________________________Sunil 392 read with Seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 397 IPC. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months imprisonment. 307 IPC Five years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months imprisonment. 326 IPC Three years RI and to pay fine...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Amritlal Borana and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN414
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner Union of India is aggrieved with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 22nd March, 1999 in the Original Application No. 263/97 filed by respondent Amritlal Borana.2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the said respondent employee who was serving in the office of the Dy. Controller of Stores, Northern Railway superannuated on 31st Oct., 1998. However, before he superannuated, he was served with a chargesheet Under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D & A) Rules, 1968 proposing to impose a major penalty. During the pendency of that enquiry, Original Application No. 469/94 was moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing that enquiry and releasing the retiral benefits in the form of gratuity to the applicant. The respondent applicant was being paid a provisional pension and there is no dispute about that. Since he was subjected to departmental enquiry at the time of his superannation, he was denied t...
Salman Khan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC535; 2007(3)WLN324
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Saraswat for the petitioner accused and learned AAG Mr. R.P. Vyas for the respondent State.2. This petition is filed Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Officer In charge (Copying Sec), District and Sessions Court, Jodhpur and also the impugned order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur by which the application filed by the accused for obtaining duplicate copy of video cassette was rejected in criminal case No. 352/2000 and C.R. No.93(26)/98 (State v. Salman Khan and Ors.)3. In the instant case in the presence of the petitioner accused, the statement of witnesses were once again recorded and while doing the same, the videography of the same was also done. After completion of the investigation, the Forest Department filed complaint against the accused persons Under Sections 2(16), 9/52 and 9/51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act before the Co...
Jagdish Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC327; 2001(4)WLN13
ORDERDr. AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.(1). The Writ Petition filed by the pelitioner to set aside -the order dated 4.2.1997 and allow him to continue to work in the Transporl Department with all consequential benefits.(2). By the order dated, 4.2.97, the petitioner was transferred back to the Department of Agriculture from where he was relieved way back in the year 1986. The said order is annexed and marked as Annexure-6.(3). The pelitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk after his regular selection in the department of Agriculture on 15.5.1971. He was confirmed with the cadre of Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 1980. The petitioner submitted an application through proper channel for seeking his transfer from Agriculture Department to the Transport Department. He was transferred to the Transport DepartmenI vide order dated 20th January, 1986 on the post of Lower Division Clerk (Annex, l). Since the pelitioner sought transfer on his own request, he was placed in the seniority list below the Low...
Ramesh Chand Malviya Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC557; 2001(3)WLN17
ORDERKokje, J.(1). The petitioner has challenged an order of his suspension from the post of Sarpanch. It is admitted that an enquiry under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayali Raj Act, 1994, is going on against the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the alleged misconduct was of the time prior to the petitioner's re-election, when he was Sarpanch of the same Panchayat and he cannot be removed for something which was done in an earlier term and not in the current term as Sarpanch. It is further contended that as the petitioner is not liable to be removed from Officer under Section 38(1) of the Act, he cannot be suspended under Section 38(4) of the Act.(2). The learned counsel relies on the proviso to Section 38(1) and submits that under this proviso, an enquiry under sub section (1) of Section 38 can be conducted/initialed even after the expiry of the term of the Panchayati Raj Institution but in such an enquiry, no order for removal of a Member, Chairperson or the Deput...
Hanumanram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC376
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 1.9.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner:-Name of accused appellants Convicted under/SectionSentence awarded1. Mithu304(1) IPCSeven years SI and a fine of Rs. 5.000/-, in defaultof payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one year.325/1491PCThree years SI and a fine of Rs. 2.000/-, In defaultof payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month,323/149 IPCSix months SI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in defaultof payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days SI.148 IPCOne year SI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in defaultof payment of fine, to further undergo one month SI.2,Likhmaram304(1)/149 IPCSeven years SI and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in defaultof payment of fine, to further undergo one year Si.325 IPCThree years SI and a fine Of Rs. 2,000/-, In defaultof payment of fine, to further under...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC391; 2001WLC(Raj)UC545
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner's mother Ganga Devi had filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. against the non-petitioner claiming maintenance for herself and her minor son making requisite averments. On this application, the the Trial Court vide order dated 27.10.1994 passed an order for interim maintenance, which order was confirmed in revision by order dated 13.9.1995. Thereafter the learned Trial Court after completing the necessary trial, vide order dated 12.9.1997 passed the final order awarding a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife Ganga Devi, and identical sum to the petitioner minor son. This amount was payable w.e.f. 31.3.1994 (application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. filed on 21.3.1994) and directed that whatever amount may have been paid by way of interim maintenance shall be adjusted, and that the amount of maintenance payable to the son shall be payable till his attaining majority. Against this order a revision was filed wherein the case was remanded vide...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »