Rajasthan Court July 2001 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Satnam Singh @ Satta Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN347
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Slate of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.6.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Gases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 8/92 by which he acquitted the accused respondent of the charges for the offence under Sections 458 and 307 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled. Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act')-2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 14.10.1991 at about 3.30 AM, PW1 Tej Kaur lodged a report before PW 10 Prem Nath, S.H.O., Police Station Gajsinghpur District Sri Ganganagar stating inter-alia thather son Brijlal, PW8 went to field for irrigating the crops and in the mid-night, PW2 Kala Singh came to her house and told her that at about 11.00 PM in the night, accused respondent caused injuries on the person of PW8 Brijlal with sword with an intention to murder him and he was about to...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Sardara and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC563
Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The practice of the Corporation to leave no order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal unchallenged deserves to be deprecated.3. In this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution the challenge has been made to the interim award dated 7.4.2001 (Ann: 3), made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, Under this interim award the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant.4. The petitioner though produced on the record of this petition the copy of the application filed by the claimants but the copy of the reply to this application submitted by it has not been produced. The fact that the petitioner has not produced before this Court the copy of its reply to this application of the claimants goes to show that possibly it would not have any reply to the same.5. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the Corporation has filed its reply to the application of the claimants, Ann. 1.6. It is really...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Das Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN278
Sharma, J. 1. In the instant appeal the appellant has impugned the judgment dated March 3, 1998 of the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Ajmer whereby the appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1995 under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000A (in default to further undergo six months R.I.).2. As per prosecution story Pooran Singh, A.S.I., Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Ajmer on receiving information on June 24, 1983 at 9.50 p.m. from J.N. Hospital that a woman having burns on her body was admitted, reached at the Hospital and recorded Parcha Bayan of injured Asha (since deceased) who deposed that when she was alone in the house her husband Mohan Das (accused appellant) poured kerosene on her, ignite the match stick and set her ablaze. When she raised hue and cry, the tenants of the house came over there. After a while she also found her husband there who put a cloth on her. On the basis of Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishore Pareek Vs. Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC358; 2001(3)WLN679
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Shri Sunil Samdaria for the appellant and Shri R.K. Goyal for the respondents.(2). This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.9.1998, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4068/1995, whereby the writ petition wad dismissed.(3). The facts, in brief, are as follows:-The appellant preferred writ petition before this Court seeking directions to quash and set aside the results of the re- typing lest and the interviews held on 31.10.1992 and 9.11.1992 respectively and also to quash and set aside the consequential appointment letter (Ex.6) in respect of respondents No. 4 to 6 in the writ petition. A further prayer was also sought for issuance of the directions by this court to the respondents to prepare a fair select list of 17 candidates who were interviewed on 30.9.1992, on the basis of passing original qualifying typing test in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules, 1992 and consequently issue appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Ram Kushwaha Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC334; 2001(3)WLN717
Lakshmanan, CJ.(1). Heard Shri Prem Asopa, Senior Advocate for the appellant and Shri Ajay Purohit, Government Advocate, for the respondents,(2). This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.8.2000, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3882/2000, dismissing the writ petition.(3). By filing the writ petition, the appellant sought an appropriate writ, order or direction for taking the decision on the representation of the appellant filed under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, forrevocation of the suspension order dated 13.1.2000, as observed by this Court vide its order dated 19.5.2000 inter-alia on the ground that the said representation is still pending despite reminder of 15 days dated 29.5.2000 and the appellant is still continuing under suspension without there being any charge-sheet and, therefore, the suspension order is unreasonable, arbitrary and the same is liabl...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamla Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC370; 2001(3)WLN675
Lakshmanan, C.J. (1). By consent of counsel for both the parties, the present special appeal is taken up for hearing al the admission stage. (2). Heard counsel for both the sides. (3). This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 29.7.1999, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1098/1999 and other 8 similar appeals, whereby the Misc. Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant Oriental InsuranceCompany Ltd. against the Award dated 4.3.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhabra, District Baran in Claim Petition No. 61/1995, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,89,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition jointly and severally as against the respondents No. 7 and 8 with that of the appellant Insurance Company, has been dismissed and the Award has been confirmed. (4). The appellant Insurance Company has denied its liability because of the ...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Jagdamba Construction Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(NULL)530
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.This appeal of the revenue for assessment year 1995-96 is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 21-4-1999.2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the assessees paper book.3. The learned Departmental Representative of the revenue has relied on the order of assessing officer as against this the learned authorised representative has contended that the matter of deduction for interest paid to third parties involved in this appeal is converted in assessees favour by the decision of Tribunal Jodhpur, dated 26-7-2000 in the case of M/s Rikhab Dass Jain in ITA No. 849/Jp/97 (assessment year 1993-94) (reported at (2001) 72 M (Jd) 526) and has furnished the copy of the same.4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the cited decision, I find the matter squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Tribunal, Jodhpur. In that view of the matter, I find no fault ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish @ Tempu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC679
Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed Under Section 374 Cr.P.C. by accused appellant Jagdish alias Tempo against the he judgment dated 13.7.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. l, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 21/97(15/97)by which he has been convicted Under Section 302 1PC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Charges against the accused appellant were that at about half past 3.00 P.M. on 23.9.1996 in village Rampuria under police station Tibi District Hanumangarh in his own residential house accused appellant Jagdish alias Tempu murdered his wife Sayara, his five years' old son Salim and him 2-1/2 years' old daughter Bala by burning them through kerosene oil.3. Accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, therefore, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents in support thereof. Accused appellant in statement given Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all ...
Tag this Judgment!Birdhi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN102; 2002(3)WLN102
Verma, J.1. The petitioner who is Scheduled Caste is also B.E. in Electrical was selected by the Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in July 1991 vide Annexure-1. He is confirmed Assistant Engineer. As per the seniority of the Assistant Engineers (Electrical) as published on 1.4.1999, his seniority No. was 17. On the recommendations made by the DPC held on 7.3.2000 in terms of Rule 24 (A) of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (B & R Branch) Rules, 1954 (here-in-after called the Rules), the petitioner was promoted against the quota of 1999-2000 on the basis of seniority cum merit on 30.3.2000 vide Annexure-3, ever since he was working continuously as Executive Engineer (Electrical) in Public Works Department. He was reverted vide order dated 10.7.2000 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on the ground that no post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) was available and being the junior most, he could not be retained. A copy of the reversion order is attac...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nirmala Arya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN99; 2002(3)WLN99
Verma, J.1. Vide Annex.5 the petitioner was offered appointment of Teacher Grade III on 9.1.1987 on the basis of her qualifications i.e. B.Sc., M.A. and B.Ed. She had passed B.Ed, from a college said to be affiliated with Hindi University, Allahabad. She was confirmed on 25.1.1990 on the said post. She wanted to continue her further Post-graduate studies in M.Ed. from Himachal University and sought the permission of the department. Her application was not forwarded on the ground that B.Ed. degree passed by her was not recognised as yet by the UGC. The petitioner being alarmed of such a situation, of which she had no earlier knowledge, joined B.Ed. course once again from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak which is duly recognised by the UGC. She was successful and got the degree in 1992.2. After the petitioner had even obtained the regular degree duly recognised from the M.D. University, Rohtak (Haryana) (assuming that earlier degree was not recognised by the UGC), the petitioner was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »