Rajasthan Court April 2002 Judgments
Allied Domeeq Spirits and Wine Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj824; 2002(3)WLC542
Sharma, J.1. Common prayer of the petitioner company in the instant writ petitions is as under - (a) to declare that the Rajasthan Excise Amendment Rules 1998 and Section 31 of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 are ultra vires, invalid and not enforceable. (b) to declare that item No. 14 which prescribes fee for permission to manufacture/bottle IMFL/Beer on franchise agreement and Rule 69(2)(b) which prescribes fee for licence to bottle foreign liquor in case of manufacture of brands of other unit under franchise arrangement is ultravires, invalid, void and unenforceable. (c) to quash the demand raised by the respondents vide their letters dated October 30, 2000 and March 29, 2001. (d) to restrain the respondents from imposing any further levy in further under Rule 69(2)(b) and 68(14) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules. 2. Rule 69(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules 1956 (for short 1956 Rules) after being amended vide Notification No. F.4C18) FD/Ex/98 dated 9.7.1998 authorised the Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mrinal Joshi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj859; 2002(3)WLC326
Naolekar, J. 1. In all these cases the question of law requiring consideration by this Court and the relief sought are same, arising out of similar set of facts and thus they were heard jointly and are being Finally decided by this common order. The PG students in these cases, who are petitioners in some of the cases and s in others, were registered for M.D., M.S. course jn the year 1996, except Dr.Varsha Dashora who was registered in the year 1997, after having cleared in MBBS examination with one year's internship. They were allotted their placements in merit list in different subject/specialities for M.D., M.S. course. Some of them were permitted to change, by reshuffling, their subject/speciality. The PG students having not completed three years of training in a subject/speciality before commencement of the examination they were not permitted to appear in the examination. Feeling aggrieved by not getting permission to appear in the examination writ petitions were filed. Under the o...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1178; 2002(5)WLN440
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 26.5.1992 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, direction or order, it may be declared that the petitioner is entitled for family pension and the State Government is under an obligation to accept the revised option of the petitioner etc. etc.2. It arises in the following circumstances: The husband of the petitioner retired on 15.7.1974 after attaining the age of superannuation. The husband of the petitioner expired on 30.7.1974. Her husband of the petitioner expired on 30.7.1974. Her husband was working as Chowkidar in the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan in the office of Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Pindwara and at the time or retirement, he was posted at Saie Pariyozna Sub Division No. 3. The petitioner is the widow of late/Shankerla), Chowkidar and is entitled to get pension which is being denied to her and ther...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Baid Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC628; 2003(3)WLN449
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. These three revision petitions by petitioner Vinod Baid involve more or less similar facts and an identical question of law, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. In all these revision petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 420 and 406, IPC.3. In Cr. Revision No. 140/2002, a complaint was filed against the petitioner on 26.11.1997 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 1.4.1998 sent the complaint under Section 156(3), CrPC to the concerned police station for investigation. There-upon, FIR was registered on 4.4.1998 and the police after investigation submitted negative report. On a notice having been issued, the complainant Vishnu Swaroop Baldeva filed a protest petition on 2.5.2002 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.4. In Cr. Revision No. 138/2002, a complaint was filed by complainant Narain Singh against the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN571
Khem Chand Sharma, J.Both the accused appellants namely; Kishan Lal and Sugan Lal were tried by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, Bundi for having committed offence Under Section 8/18. The learned Special Judge having found the prosecution story as alleged, proved, held the accused appellants guilty of the offence Under Section 8/18 of the Act and accordingly convicted them of the said offence and sentenced each of them to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. one lac, in default thereof, each was to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. As per, the prosecution case, on 26.4.1997 PW-3 Bajrang Lal, Sub-Inspector, Central Narcotics Bureau, Kota submitted a report that he, while in the process of checking to' prevent smuggling of narcotic drugs, under the leadership of Superintendent (Prevention) got Bus No. RJ 01-P 1014 stopped. During the course of search, he found a person in suspicious condition sitting on seat No. 37, who, on enquiry, disclose...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Sahayak Karmachari Sangh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj4; 2002(4)WLN20
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 9.3.1992 against the respondents with the prayer that the impugned condition mentioned in column No.6 against the post No. 9 in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1977') constituting words.'....on posts mentioned in Column 5' be struck down declaring it ultra vires and unconstitutional and furthermore, the respondents be directed to consider all the members of the petitioner-Union working on the posts of Jaldhari (Waterman), Sayis and Sweeper forpromotion to the posts of Live-Stockman provided they are otherwise eligible in terms of the Rules in this regard. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: The members of the petitioner-Union are employed in the Animal Husbandry Department on various posts such as Jaldhari, Sayis and Sweeper in Jodhpur zone. It was submitted by the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1026; 2002(3)WLC424
Sharma, J.1. Appellant Kishan Singh along with co- accused Birbal and Kalyan Singh faced trial before the learned Special Judge (Sati Prevention) Rajasthan cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 40/52. The learned trial judge by his impugned judgment dated July 5, 1995 found appellant Kishan Singh guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced, him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Co-accused Kirpal Singh and Kalyan Singh were however acquitted. Appellant Kishan Singh has assailed the findings of the learned trial judge in the instant appeal.2. Succinctly stated, the relevant facts for the disposal of the instant appeal are, that in the evening of December 15, 1988 Jagdish (deceased) was sitting at the booking counter of Beniwal Travellers which is situated near Bikaner Hotel, Station Road, Jaipur. His uncle PW.3 Birbal Singh was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhjit Kaur (Smt.) Vs. Sikandar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj564
Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.3.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar whereby an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act' hereinafter) filed by respondents Sikander Singh was allowed. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties have compromised the matter and the compromise has been filed. The parties are present in the Court today. The parties have been identified by their respective counsel.2. An application under Section 13B of the Act has been filed today jointly by both the parties. Admittedly, the parties are not residing together for last about for year - at least from the date of the filing of application under Section 9 of the Act. The period of more tan six months has already elapsed. By the present application under Section 13B of the Act the parties seek desolation of their marriage by mutual consent. The application seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent is not opposed...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN499
Fateh Chand Bansal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.2.1995 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Kota, whereby the appellant-Shambu has been convicted for offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that PW-1 Chhotu submitted a written report Ex. P. 1 to S.H.O., P.S. Mandana (Distt. Kota) at police outpost-Jagpura on 24.6.1990 at 7:30 p.m. It was, inter alia, stated in the written report that today at about 6:00 p.m., his brother Devlal was milking a buffalo belonging to Madholal Kalal near the house of Kajodi Lal. The Accused-Shambhu S/o Panchu, Uda S/o Surajmal Bheel, Kalu S/o Madho Bheel, Latoor S/o...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Rakhi Bansal Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC644
1. The appellant has sought transfer from Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Ajmer to SMS Medical College, Jaipur. It is alleged that the appellant is suffering from Chronic, Calcific Pancreatitis disease for which treatment is available only in SMS Medical College, Jaipur and nowhere else in Rajasthan. So far as this aspect is concerned there is some controversy because the concerned Doctor Ramesh Rooprai, who is Unit Head & Associate Professor in SMS Medical College, Jaipur, has given 2 certificates. In latter certificate he has stated that this treatment is available only in SMS Medical College, Jaipur, whereas in the earlier certificate he has not said so.2. Be that as it may, our attention has been drawn to the relevant regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.3. According to Regulation 6 of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 dealing with migration, migration is not possible during clinical course of study on any gr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »