Rajasthan Court July 2003 Judgments
Ramswaroop and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3960; RLW2004(1)Raj109; 2003(4)WLC84
S.K. Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by accused appellants Ram Swaroop and Krishna Kumar arises out of the judgment and order dated 7,8.98 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu, thereby convicting them for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.2. Succinctly stated that facts leading to this appeal are that on 7.9.97, PW 1 Suwa Puri lodged a written report at Police Station, Nawalgarh, alleging therein that on 7.9.97 at 4.30 PM his son Ramniwas was going for dinner in the 'Mel' of Keshar Bhat in the jeep of Sadhu Ram and one Lalu Ram was also accompanying them, since there was no way to cover further distance by Jeep, they left the jeep in Johdi and proceeded on feet, When they reached near the field of Sultanpuri, the accused appellants along with Fooldi and Bhanwari came there and stooped them ...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. the Executive Engineer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj230; 2004(1)WLC168
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 13.7.2001 with a prayer that impugned award dtd. 13.2.2001 (Annex. 5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur by which the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respondent No. 2) instead of order of reinstatement, only awarded Rs. 31,000/- as compensation to the petitioner be modified with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service.(2). The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under:i) That the State Government vide its notification dtd. 1.9.94 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court (respondent No. 2): 'Whether the termination of services of the petitioner by respondents No. 1 on 30.11.92 was valid and justified and if so what relief the workman was entitled to?' ii) That on the basis of aforesaid reference, a case was registered by the Labour Court (respondent No. 2) and the petitioner submitted his...
Tag this Judgment!Amardeep Dube and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj303; 2003(4)WLC547
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 8.7.2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order of direction, the impugned transfer order dated 3.7.2003 passed by the Dy.Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur transferring the petitioners Amardeep Dube and Kailash Joshi from Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur to Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and Jaitaran respectively be taken on record and it may be quashed and set aside and further, the order Annex. 2 dated 4.7.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur by which both the petitioners were relieved in pursuance of transfer order dated 3.7.2003, be quashed and set aside.(2). The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:-The case of the petitioners is that under the provisions of Section 8 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (hereinaft...
Tag this Judgment!Director, Treasury and Accounts Vs. Suresh Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj861
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to filing of this revision petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. are that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit along with the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. on 21st of September, 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Bharatpur. It is pleaded in the suit that he was appointed as Junior Accountant on 19th of June, 1976 in the Municipal Council, Bharatpur. He was promoted as Accountant with effect from 16.9.1988 and now he is working as Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from 1.7.1999.2. It is submitted that the services of employees and officers of the Municipalities are governed by the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial) Service Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules, 1969') and Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 (for short, the Rules, 1963'). In the relevant service rules though there is a provision that the post of Assistant Accounts Officer is to be filled in 100% by pr...
Tag this Judgment!Avadh Behari Pachauri Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj954; 2004(2)WLC549
Misra, J.1. The petitioner who was a Upper Division Clerk in the Rehabilitation Branch of the District Collector Jaipur and has subsequently retired from service has fifed this writ petition challenged the order of his dismissal dated 23.10.91 as contained in Annexure-15, This order was passed after an enquiry was held against him for the charge of wilfull absence from duty regarding which his explanation was not accepted by the enquiry Officer nor his leave was adjusted against the leave which were due to him. As a consequence of this order, the petitioner has been denied even his pensionary benefits inspite of long years of service.2. In order to high-light the controversy involved in this writ petition, a slight enumeration of the facts appears to be essential. In this context it may be stated that the petitioner while he was serving as an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the District Collector (Rehabilitation Jaipur remained on leave from 29.9.87 to 11.10.87 for thirteen days ...
Tag this Judgment!Harkesh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4181; RLW2004(2)Raj979; 2003(4)WLC522
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by appellant Harkesh sent through, Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City converting the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.2. The appellant was charged with the offence of committing murder of his real brother Hansraj by inflicting injuries with a knife, in the intervening night of 28/29.7.1998 while deceased was sleeping at the field. According to the prosecution case, Hari Prasad Meena P.W. 1 submitted a written report Ex.P.1 at the police station Bamanwas on 29.7.1997 mentioning that Hansraj, son of his uncle Sukh Lal, in routine, went to the field known as Telyadi Wala in the evening at about 7-8 on 28.7.1997 to keep watch. He used to sleep at the field. It was mentioned that today i.e. on 29.7.1997 in the...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1408
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), the accused-petitioner has challenged the order dated 15-10-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghna-gar, whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order as also the record of the trial court.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed, for which cheating is alleged, was executed by the complainant and while executing the sale deed, if any offence of cheating is committed then unless the sale deed is quashed, petitioner cannot be put to trial in a criminal court. It was further contended that the matter is of civil nature and the parties have resorted for the remedy to the ci...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairu Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1578; 2004(1)WLC459
Panwar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to withdraw the order of his dismissal from Army Service as well as the impugned order Annex.8 dated 5.2.2000, by which the petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and taking the petitioner on duty as if such orders have not been passed.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was recruited by the Branch Recruitment Officer (for short, 'B.R.O.') on 26.12.97 and the relevant Enrolment Form was filled-up by the Havaldar of B.R.O. Office and petitioner replied all the quarries made by the Havaldar. On being recruited, he had undergone the training and was waiting for attestation. A verification of character and antecedents was called from the District Magistrate, Jodhpur, who after due verification, sent the Verification Roll (Annx.3) stating therein that the petitioner was prosecuted in criminal case N...
Tag this Judgment!Sehdeo Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2136; 2004(1)WLC240
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 7.3.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Merla in Sessions Case No. 2/2002, whereby the learned Sessions Judge discharged the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 from the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') remitted the case to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 228 of the Code, for trial of the case in accordance with law as the other offences, to which accused-respondents are charged with, are not triable by the Court of Sessions. Aggrieved by the order of discharge of the accused-respondents from the offence under Section 307, IPC, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused-respondents. Perused the impugned order as a...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN587(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record of the writ petition, special appeal and the order of the learned Single Judge.2. At the outset we are constraint to observe that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has wasted huge public money in making this bulky record of the appeal.3. In the appeal, the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge under which, on the application filed by the respondent under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the interim order granted on 27-3-2003, has been vacated. Though, this appeal is against the interim order on an interlocutory application and ordinarily it is not maintainable but on the insistence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, we have touched the merits of the matter.4. Having carefully examining the merits of the matter we are constraint to observe even filing of the writ petition in the matter is uncalled for. it was avoidable a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »