Rajasthan Court July 2001 Judgments
Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Hemraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj239; 2002(4)WLN270
Tatia, J.1. The appellants filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 4th Nov., 1995 delivered in Civil Misc. Case No. 27/91 by the District Judge, Balotra.2. The facts of the case are that applicants-respondents submitted an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for getting succession certificate for the properties of deceased Gangaram S/o Lakhmi Chand, who died at Barmer on 3rd Dec., 1990. According to respondent-applicants Gangaram died on 3rd Dec., 1990 and Gangaram's wife died prior to Gangaram and there is no issue of deceased Gangaram and his wife, Applicants are sons of real sister of deceased Gangaram. The month of applicants who was sister of deceased also died before Gangaram and,therefore, according to claimants they are the only successors to the property left by deceased Gangaram.3. The non-applicants-appellants filed reply to the application under Section 372 and also submitted an application for grant of probate in the form of Counter claim be...
Tag this Judgment!Shedu and ors. Vs. Birdha and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC761; 2002(4)WLN448
Misra, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.5.96 passed by the Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 337/94 wherein the question that falls for consideration is whether photocopy of a document whose original possibly could not have been in possession of the plaintiff and yet is vital to prove his plea, could be refused to be accepted on a technical plea that a photocopy of the document can be only in the nature of secondary evidence which could not be accepted as it is the only the document in original which can be treated as primary evidence which has been proved by the plaintiff.The aforesaid question arises under the following facts and circumstances:-- the petitioner-herein was the plaintiff who had filed a suit on the averment that the disputed land measuring 15 biswas bearing Khasra No. 121 situated at Dhani Hemka Wali, village Natata is the joint property of the plaintiff/petitioners and the defendant/respondent No. 1 are co-...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN661
Verma, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Engineering Subordinate at Kama in the year 1976 was served with a charge- sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules) on 18.5.1976 on the allegations mentioned therein. There were total 10 persons who were issued the identical charge-sheet. On 11.3.1986, the petitioner and other persons were punished by stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect by converting the charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules for imposing minor punishment. This action was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No. 2137/87 and the order was setaside. He was served another charge-sheet identical to the previous one on 9.12.1988 under Rule 17 of the Rules vide Annexure-1 which was replied to. He was punished on 27.2.1993 with a punishment of stoppage of one grade increment, without cumulative effect vide Annexure-5. The incident related to the year 1969...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbha Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC259; 2002(2)WLN257
Jagat Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th May, 1999 passed in Sessions Case No. 18/96 by learned Sessions Judge, Merta, convicting accused appellants under Section 364, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. The learned trial court also convicted them under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment whereof further undergo six months-rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The charges against accused appellants are that at 5:30 PM on 14.2.1996 in village Pancharda Khurd at the shop of PW-6 Dhema Ram, Kumbha Ram accused hurled a 'Kassi' blow on the head of Mewa Ram, felling him down and thereafter, three accused appellants along with Babu Ram, who has be...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Lala Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC120; 2003(2)WLN354
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.2. Appellants are aggrieved with the judgment of learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the responded a patrolling Officer under the Excise Preventive -Force of the Excise Department. A chargesheel the target of registering the minimum number of cases while he was serving at Ball in the period immediate after he was posted there inter alia on the ground that the incumbent in registering less than the targeted number of cases under the provisions of Excise Act, has shown negligence in discharge of his duties. The respondent had furnished his explanation that since he has been appointed shortly before the period in question and he took some time to understand the working of the provisions of the Excise Act in the area under his control and the nature of breaches that are likely to occur in the area under his control. He also brought to the notice that he has no been made available with the requisite amount of faciliti...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Vijay Goyal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC286
Keshote, J.1. This petition is presented by the petitioner in the Court on 15th March, 2000, and by that time it is not admitted so far. The petitioner has madeattempt to get in admitted so many times but he failed to get i! admitted. From the order sheets of this case, it is also borne out that prima facie the petitioner's case was not accepted by the court and that may be the reason that time was granted to the petitioner from time to time by the Courts to place the relevant rules for his entitlement for stipend. The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner is on the record and there from, I do not find anything in his favour which justifies the claim of the petitioner. The Diploma course in Anesthesia 20th May, 2000. The petitioner's claim is that he is entitled to stipend for full terms of two years merely on the ground that he remained on leave from October 23, 1997 to June 01, 1998, he cannot be depraved of by his this benefit.2. I do not find any merit for this claim of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dropadi Vs. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Gangapur City
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj385; 2002(1)WLC603
Kokje, J.1. The case was finally heard with the consent of the parties as the only point involved is a legal point as to whether the period for obtaining certified copy of the declaration of the election result could be excluded from the period of limitation prescribed under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act'), for the purpose of filing election petition.2. The respondent No. 4 filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner. This was filed one day beyond the period of thirty days prescribed under the Act. It was contended by the election petitioner that she had filed the election petition within thirty days from the date of obtaining copy of the declaration of the election result. The point raised was as to whether the period spent in obtaining copy of the declaration of the election result could be excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) before whom the election petition is pending, heard the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC289; 2001(4)WLN679
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is in service of the State of Rajasthan and had given a notice in writing to the appointing authority to seek voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 30th April, 1997. Notice was given on 4th Nov. 1996. Before the date with effect from which the retirement was to be effected as per notice he withdrew his notice by communication dated 23rd April, 1997.3. These facts are not in dispute. However, the petitioner was not allowed to resume the duties in view of the fact that before the expiry of 3 months from the dale of receipt of notice the respondents have accepted the request of petitioner for voluntarily retirement. According to the respondents, once they accepted the offer of voluntarily retirement given under Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the option to retire became complete, thereafter, no withdrawal was permissible.4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that it is open for ...
Tag this Judgment!Umaid Mal JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC653
Keshote, J.1. The petitioner who is a retired employee of Medical & Health Department of Govt. of Raj. by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is praying for the following relief: -'(ii) by issuing a writ in the form of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction to implemen! the order & Judgment of Service Tribunal in appeal No. 575/82:-(a) promote the petitioner on the posts of Office Superintendent Gr.II from 2.8.1972, Office Superintendent Gr. I from 18.10.1975;(b) make payment of aforesaid deducted amount of House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance with interest;(c) pay the amount towards compensation for mental agony, financial loss and loss of self prestige and social status;(d) give other consequential benefits including pensionary benefits to the petitioner;(e) cost of writ petition may also be awarded; and (f) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the interest of justice be also allowed.'2. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC407; 2002(2)WLN171
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 17.10.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases (Addl. Sessions Judge No.1), Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 66/96 by which he convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced each of them to undergo twelve years R1 and to pay fine of Rs. two lacs in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years' imprisonment.2. By the same judgment, the learned Special Judge acquitted accused Rafique Mohd. of the charge for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act and also acquitted accused Jamnesh and Intquab Khan of the charge for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act, while the case against one accused Saleem Khan remained pending as he was declared absconder.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as foll...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »