Rajasthan Court May 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.
Asu Ram and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC216; 2007(3)WLN373
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is a petition filed by two petitioners; one Asu Ram, a resident of Ward No. 14 Village Palana and other Kheta Ram, who is Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat Palana - a Panchayati Raj Institution, challenging the order dated 7.4.2001 (Annex.5) passed by State Govt. in purported exercise of its power Under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 directing stay of the operation of order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner on 21st March, 2001 declaring the respondent No.3, the Sarpanch of said Gram Panchayat, by holding that he suffers from disqualification Under Section 19(1) and declaring the office of Sarpanch to be vacant in terms of Section 39 of the said Act.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the State Govt. has no jurisdiction to revise or reject the order passed by the Competent Authority Under Section 39 by invoking powers Under Section 97. He contends that the power Under Section 97 be invoked only In respect...
Ramsukh Vs. Smt. Rukma Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN379
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused the order dated 22.1.2001 by which the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court.2. The plaintiff submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. alleging that the Municipal Board, Jaitaran granted permission to raise construction to the defendant under Section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1956 and that permission is liable to be cancelled by declaring it as illegal. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner when came to know about the fact of permission from the Municipal Board, Jaitaran granting permission to raise the construction to the defendant from the written statement filed by the defendant they impleaded Municipal Board, Jaitaran as party to the suit and the court permitted to implead the Municipal Board, Jaitaran as party and, therefore, when the Municipal Board, ...
Umed Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC517; 2002(4)WLN146
Singh, J. 1. Both these appeal arise from common judgment dated 21.8.1998 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment, copy of which may be retained in each file.2. By the impugned judgment accused appellant Sushil Kumar alias Shyam Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 1PC for murder of Hem Singh. He has also been convicted under Section 323/34 1PC for the simple Injuries caused to Tejaram. Similarly, accused appellant Umed Singh has been convicted under Section 302/34 [PC as also under Section 323 IPC. Both the accused appellants are sentenced for life imprisonment for the murder of Hem Singh and simple imprisonment of three months for the simple injuries caused to Tejaram. Both the accused appellants are also fined Rs. 1000A and Rs. 100/- in each count and in default thereof were to undergo six months and 15 days simple imprisonment respectively. Both the substantial sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. ...
M/S Herbertsons Limited, Alwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC19; 2001(3)WLN442
Lakshmanan, C.J. (1) Civil Writ Petition No. 2683/98 was filed by M/s Herbertsons Ltd. to quash the notice as also the impugned orders Anx.1 dated 16.8.97 passed by the Commissioner, Excise Department, Udaipur and Anx. 2 dated 29.7.98 passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench and to declare that no interest is leviable on the due enhanced bottling fees since the payability of the dues was arrested during the period in which the stay order passed by this Court was in vogue. Therefore, the respondents be directed to make refund of the Rs. 33,91,500/-which have been deposited by the petitioner against the Interest, with Interest at the rate of 24% per annum.(2). Writ Petition No. 2684/98 was filed by M/s. Udaipur Distillery Company Ltd. to quash the impugned orders Annex. 1, 2 and 3 and to declare that no interest is leviable on the due enhanced bottling fees on the petitioner company, since the payability of the due enhanced bottling fees was arrested during the period in ...
Smt. Nirmala Vs. Bhagwana Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN50
ORDERPanwar, J. (1). This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.2.1995 passed by the Most Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim case No. 719/92 (152/92) by which the Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 99,000/- in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. (2). Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the Award. (3). Briefly stated the facts, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are that on 3.9.91, the appellant was travelling in a Bus No. RNE4833 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') from Chillorgarh to Bhilwara. At about 8.15 AM while the Bus was at about 8-10 Kms away from Bhilwara and reached infront of Rajshree and Amol Synthetics, at that time, a Truck No. RJ-14-G-0678 came from opposite direction driven rashly and negligently ...
Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC654; 2002(1)WLN395
Shethna, J.1. Following important questions of law are arising in this petition:-(1) Whether order passed by the Trial Court rejecting an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused persons, to recall the witnesses for the purpose of further examination is an interlocutory order or not? (2) Whether, this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against such interlocutory order when the Sessions Court has rejected the revision filed by the accused solely on the ground that no revision would be maintainable under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C.? (3) Whether this Court can entertain the petition against such interlocutory orders passed by the trial court under Section 482 Cr. P.C.? 2. The present accused petitioners along with one more accused are facing trial for offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B I.P.C. of committing forgery and cheating the Government for lakhs of rupees way back in 1981 before the Court of Additional Chi...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ranvir Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC152; 2001(4)WLN445
Misra, J.1.This special appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in a writ petition bearing No. 2418 of 1995 whereby the respondent-Ranvir Singh who had been a Constable in the IVth Battalian of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC for short) and was removed from service on the charge of willful absence from duty for more than a period of one year, has been ordered to be reinstated in service but without backwages. However, the period of his absence from duty has been ordered to be treated as extraordinary leave and this period has further been ordered to be considered for the purpose of pension. The learned Single Judge has further desired that the conduct of the respondent be watched so that he should be put on duty befitting his medical status. Thus the order of removal of the respondent from service of the Commandant IVth Battalian, RAC, Jaipur, was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.2. The afore...
Ram Kumar Vs. the Director General of Police
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN719
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.12.1999 (Annx. 4) by which the services of the petitioner stood terminated.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the posts of Constable Driver are advertised to be filled up under the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called as the Rules) on 24.9.1998. Petitioner applied in response to the said advertisement. He passed the written examination and being successful therein he faced the physical test and was called for interview on 21.10.1999 and in pursuance thereof he was selected as a Constable Driver. Vide impugned order dated 15.12.1999 (Annx. 4) his services stood terminated on the ground that in his application form he had concealed the material fact particularly the fact that he had been involved in a criminal case for the offences punished under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC. Hence this petition.3. Admittedl...
Smt. Nirmala Pareek Vs. Bhagwana Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: III(2002)ACC607; 2002(2)WLC302
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.2.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' in Claim Case No. 719/1992 (152/1992) by which the Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 99,000/- in favour of the appellant and against the respondents.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the Award.3. Briefly stated the facts, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are that on 3.9.1991, the appellant was travelling in a Bus No. RNE 4833 belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') from Chittorgarh to Bhilwara. At about 8.15 a.m. while the bus was at about 8-10 kms. away from Bhilwara and reached in front of Rajshree and Amol Synthetics, at that time, a truck No. RJ 14/G-0678 came from opposite direction driven rashly and negligently by ...
Mohd. Sazid @ Sazid Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC97; 2002(1)WLN375
K.C. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 24, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, thereby convicting the accused appellant Under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default thereof to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.2. The Prosecution story, in nut shell is that on 11.7.1994 at 1.10 AM PW-2 Farooq elder brother of deceased Arif submitted a written report, Ex.P. 6 before PW-10 Kishan Lal Sub-Inspector Police Station Ramganj Jaipur alleging therein that during the night intervening 10/11.7.1994 at about 11-11.15, while he along with Bundu and Chand were sitting infront Dargah Adamshah near Julahon-ki-Masjid and were talking together on hearing noise all of them rushed to the place and found that in A-von Milk Store accused Sajid had caught the neck of Mohd. Arif. He asked as to what has happened, in the meantime Sajid took out a knife from the right pock...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »