Rajasthan Court July 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.
Om Prakash Joshi, Advocate and ors Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj33; 2001(3)WLC199; 2001(3)WLN632
Lakshmanan, C.J. (1). The petitioners in the instant writ petition are the practicing advocates at Jodhpur. They filed the writ petition with the followingprayers:-'It is, therefore, prayed that a writ, direction or order or in the nature of mandamus be issued and respondents be directed to advertise the post and appointments of Advocate General, Additional AdvocateGeneral, Government Advocates, Panel lawyers etc. to deal with cases of State of Rajasthan in High Court and various other courts in Rajasthan and selections be made.That all persons holding these posts at present be held ab initio void'.(2). According to the writ petitioners, the appointments to the post of Advocate General, Government Advocates, Public Prosecutors and Panel lawyers are made in a very arbitrary manner simply on likes and dislikes theory and that few lawyers got monopoly in representing the State. According to the petitioners, India being a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic, there must be equa...
State of Rajasthan and anr Vs. Gauri Shanker Mandavewala
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj68; 2001(3)WLC196; 2001(3)WLN668
Lakshmanan, C.J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order passed by Hon'ble Rajesh Balia, J. In Writ Petition No. 1573/2001 dated 1st May 2001 dismissing the writ petition as pre- mature with an observation that in case the respondents decide to place the petitioner under suspension, on the charges levelled against him under the two notices dated 8th March, 2001 and 4th April, 2001 or by serving any new notices after passing of the order in the writ petition, the same may not be implemented for a period of one month from the date of service of that order upon the petitioner so as to enable him to approach appropriate forum, by way of appropriate proceedings. In this context the learned Judge has also placed reliance on the earlier order passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1119/2001 wherein, this Court while dismissing the writ petition on 16.1.2001, made similar observations holding that interfering in the writ petition at that stage being prem...
Union of India and ors Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and anr
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC193; 2001(3)WLN671
Lakshmanan, C.J.(1) Heard Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.(2). With a view to give service benefits in respect to remove the stagnation and frustration likely to be caused amongst the employees on account of non-promotion to them for quite considerable period, a Scheme known as Time Bound One Promotion (T.B.O.P.) was issued. The Scheme says that on completion of 16 years of service, Class 'D' employee should be given pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. Subsequently, Biennial Cadre Review (B.C.K.) Scheme came Into force in 1991 (hereinafter called 'the Scheme'). On account of this Scheme. Class 'D' employees could have been promoted to the next higher pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-EB-25-1400. The copy of the said Scheme has been filed as Exhibit-1. As per this scheme, on completion of 26 years ofservice, second promotion in pay scale was to be given i.e. pay scale Rs. 950- 1400. However, for proper implementation of the scheme, a circular was issued whereby it was ma...
S.C. Luhadia Vs. the Managing Director, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaip ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN80; 2002(3)WLN80
Verma, J. 1. The petitioner who was working as Branch Manager (called as Agent also which post is also designated as Agent) in the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, was involved by some interested persons for taking a bride of Rs. 100A. Even though the defence of the petitioner was that the complainant had wanted Rs. 1/- note in exchange for the said currency notes of Rs. 100/-, however, the petitioner was(rapped in a raid manipulated by one Shri Phool Singh Mann of M/s. Kishan Electric Corporation. Certain departmental enquiry was also held which had resulted in favour of the petitioner.2. The present case relates only on the point and law on the given facts whether the petitioner who was removed form service on heaving been convicted by the trial court but ultimately acquitted by the appellate court was entitled to get back his job and arrears of salary or not? 3. Vide Annex.1, the petitioner was suspended for having been involved in the offence punishable under Section 161 and 5(1)(d)...
Smt. Maya L. Dhingrani Vs. U.C.O. Bank, Head Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC763
Verma, J. 1. Shri Lekhumal Dhingrani was working as peon in the Branch Office, Ajmer in the UCO Bank having been so appointed in the year 1964. He died on 7.3.1986 while in service leaving behind widow, two minor daughters who were dependenl upon him.2. The bank had framed a scheme on 17.3.1980 for giving appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased employee who dies while in service. The scheme as reproduced in the written statement provided that in case dependent is minor or does not possess the suitable minimum qualifications, his/her case can be considered within four years of the death of the employee, to enable him/her to so qualify in terms of age and/or qualification provided that the dependent has made a request to the Bank within a year of the death of the employee.3. The gratuity and other amounts were disbursed on the death of the employee of the legal heirs after they obtained the certificate as required Under Section 372 of the Succession Act.4. ...
Dharmendra Parth Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR403]; 2002(1)WLC609
Verma, J.1. Under the provisions of Rules called Rajasthan (Recruilment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rule, 1975 (herein after called 'Rules, 1975') one of the dependent of Government servant who dies, while in service is entitled to make application for the purpose of giving a suitable employment in Government Service against the existing vacancy in relaxation of normal recruitment rules, provided such member of family fulfils educational qualification prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for the post. In case the vacancy is not available, in that situation the application is to be considered immediately on availability of the post as provided under rule 5A of the Rules, 1975. Under Rule 10 of the Rules, 1975 where the deceased Govt. servant was holding a subordinate service post, a member of his family may be considered for appointment to a lowest post of subordinate Service/Ministerial Service/Class IV service which is filled by direc...
Habib Ahmed and anr. Vs. Gulab Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN326
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the order dated 3rd Jan., 1993. Perused the record of the trial court by which application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed by the trial court.2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently assailed the order dated 3rd Jan., 1993 passed by the trial court by which the above application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant engaged the advocate and paid his fees, but even then the advocate of the appellant did not appear before the trial court and the suit was decreed by the trial court. Even after the decree Sh. Bhanwar Singh Soni, Advocate did not inform the fate of the suit to the appellant and the appellant came to know about the decree dated 7th Nov., 1992 only on 21st Jan., 1993 when the sale Amin came on spot to take possession of the disputed property. Upon above information through sa...
Habib Ahmad and anr. Vs. Gulab Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN326
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties Perused the judgment and decree dated 7th Nov. 1992 passed by the trial court as well as the record.2. Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the finding recorded by the trial court and submitted that the suit was decree ex-parte even when the evidence which is on record is hot sufficient for passing decree of eviction against the appellants.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present suit for eviction was filed on the ground of default in payment of ren by the defendant-tenant alongwith other grounds of sub- letting, denial of title and material alteration in the premises. According to learned counsel for the appellants the only witness appeared in support of the suit of the plaintiff is the plaintiff himself and so far as the evidence of the plaintiff with respect to the sub-letting and parting with the possession of the property is concerned, is vague and decree cannot be passed.4. 1 have perused the statem...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Prabha Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC369; 2001(4)WLN259
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.(2). This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9.9.1997, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent - herein. The learned Judge, after giving careful and deep consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, was of the opinion that the denial of employment/appointment to the respondent herein, in spite of her being at Serial Number 1 in the merit list, is an arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents.(3). We have perused the judgment impugned in the present appeal. There is no dispute in regard to decree of divorce passed by the competent court dissolving marriage of the respondent herein, long before the advertisement calling applications for the recruitment. The decree had been passed under Section 13-B of the Act by mutual consent of the parties. This Section 13-B was introduced by Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 68 of 1...
Rakesh Vs. Smt. Nandu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC301; 2002(1)WLC730; 2002(1)WLN537
Garg, J.1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Rakesh (hereinafter referred to as non- applicant-husband) against the order dated4.10.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 163/94, by which he accepted the application filed by the respondent No. 1 Smt. Nandu (hereinafter referred to as the applicant No. 1-wife) and respondent No. 2 Nand Kishore (hereinafter referred to as the applicant No. 2-son of applicant No. 1 and non-applican[) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered that non-appticant-husband would pay Rs. 500/-p.m. as maintenance to applicant No.l-wife and Rs. 500/- p.m. as maintenance lo applicant No. 2 with effect from 15.12.1994.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-The applicant No.l Smt. Nandu, wife of the non-applicant Rakesh and applicant No. 2 Nand Kishore, son of both applicant No. 1 Smt. Nandu and non-applicant Rakesh Tiled an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Family Court, Jodhpur on 15...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »