Rajasthan Court August 2003 Judgments
Mahendrapal Singh Vs. X. En. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN638
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 7 Caveator.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the decree dated 23.5.2002, in favour of the appellant by which the respondents were directed to make available water for irrigation after holding inquiry about the existence of the garden situated in the said areas after looking into the availability of the water.3. If the grievance of the appellant is only of not providing water despite the decree, this cannot be a ground to even prefer appeal.4. It appears from the facts of the case that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for injunction on the ground that on the assurance of the respondent, Irrigation Department of the State, the appellant converted his agricultural land into horticulture garden. The assurance of the Irrigation Department was that the department will provide four times water than the ordinarily made available water for irrigation to the cultivators. According t...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Singh Punia Vs. Rajasthan Service Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1021; 2004(1)WLC663
H.R. Panwar, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed without any prayer clause but the factual matrix and the grounds taken therein lead to presume that the same has been filed seeking direction for quashing the transfer order Annx.8 dated 15-6-2002 and setting aside the order dated 29-4-2003 (Annx.21) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this writ petition, in succinct, are that petitioner, who is a Ranger Grade 1, had been transferred from Bhadra to Nohar, vide order dated 3-10-97, on humantarian ground to lookafter his old parents and family members after sad demise of his wife and elder brother. Again, vide order Annx.5 dated. 11-4-2000, he was transferred to Churu and joined his duties at Rajgarh (district Churu) on 17-7-2000. Vide impugned order Annx.8 dated 15-6-2002, he has been transferred from Rajgarh to Nohar. He challenged the impugned transfer order before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1586
Mathur, J.1. The respondent - Sadul Shahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti, a Society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, on consideration of the entire service record of appellant working as Manager, concluded that there was a continuous fall in his work performance, as such, it was in the public interest to prematurely retire him. It was also taken into consideration that he had attained the age of 56 years and served for more than 27 years. The Chief Executive Officer issued an office order dated 1.4.1988 compulsorily retiring the appellant from service under the provisions of Rule 244(2) (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Rules'. The appellant challenged the said order by way of revision petition before the Additional Registrar-II, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The said revision came to be allowed by the order dated 9.5.96 on the ground that the provisions of Section 244(2) of the Rules were not applicable to the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Babloo and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj25; 2004(1)WLC645
Sharma, J.1. The appellants three in number were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Neemkathana (Sikar) in Sessions Case No. 31/97 for having committed murder of Rohitash and the learned Judge vide judgment dated March 8. 1999 convicted and sentenced all the three appellants under Section 302 read to undergo imprisonment for Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 6 months simple imprisonment. The appellants in the instant appeal have assailed the aforequotted finding of the learned trial Judge.2. The police station Ajeetgarh recorded a parcha bayan of informant Lik-michand on June 24, 1997 wherein he stated that on the said day at about 7.00PM when his son Rohitash was returning to the house the appellants Babloo, Dharma and Ram Swaroop came out of their house armed with farsi and Lathis and started inflicting blows with farsi and lathis on the person of Rohitash, who died on the way while taken to the hos...
Tag this Judgment!Dalpat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1013; RLW2004(1)Raj241; 2003(4)WLC750
Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 3.8.91 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Sessions case No. 14/89 whereby the learned Sessions Judge had ordered framing of charges against the accused petitioners for offence under Sections 366/511 and 341 I.P.C. and charges were framed against the accused petitioners accordingly.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) The complainant Smt. Gaumti Amma lodged a written report before the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi on 25.10.88 stating that on 21.10.88 when she was returning to her home from the hospital at about 7-8 p.m. in the evening, a car No. RSN 4992 was standing near the School and accused petitioners Dalpat Singh, Mahesh Kumar, Jagdish and Laxman Meghwal were also standing there. The accused petitioner Dalpat Singh told other accused petitioners to put the complainant in the car and she was put in the car, but at that time, Chhatar Singh came there and he in...
Tag this Judgment!Shankerlal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1590; 2003(4)WLC518
Garg, J.1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment and order dated 27.6.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 13/1989 by which he partly allowed the appeal of the accused petitioner in the manner that while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1975') recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Transport). Udaipur through judgment dated 1.12.1987, he modified the sentence awarded to him by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Transport), Udaipur through order of sentence dated 1.12.1987 in the manner that instead of sentence of one month RI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo ten days SI. sentence of fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days SI wa...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1475; 2004(1)WLC23
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. As many as 13 accused were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Alwar in Sessions Case No. 24/95 for having committed murder of Pyaro Bai. The learned Judge vide judgment dated May 4, 1998 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :1. Hakim Singh :Under Section 148 IPC One year R.I. with fine of Rs. 300/- and in default further sentence of one month S.I.Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further sentence of 3 months S.I.Under Section 324/149 IPC 3 Years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000 and in default to further sentence of 3 months S.I.Under Section 323/149 IPC One year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000 in default to further sentence of 3 months S.I.Under Section 3/25 Arms Act 3 years R.I. fine of Rs. 1000 in default to further sentence of 3 months S.I.2. Kartar Singh :Under Section 148 IPC One year R.I. with fine of Rs. 300/- and in default further sentence of one months S.I.Under...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Surana and anr. Vs. Smt. Salma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj200; 2003(4)WLC732
D.N. Joshi, J. 1. By the impugned order dated 7.4.2003, the learned trial Court has rejected the application dated 3rd March, 2003 moved by the present petitioners Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead Kayum Ali, Anand Surana and Salma as accused in the case. By the said order, the application Under Section 310 Cr.P.C. (dated 26th March, 03) filed by the accused and the application dated 13.3.03 filed by the complainant Salma were also rejected but, that part of the order has not been challenged either of the parties.(2). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Sandeep Mehta argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice as the application Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the sole ground that previously an application to the same effect was rejected on 11th December, 1999. At that time, the evidence of both the parties was to be recorded. It was further argued that th...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Lal Vs. Lrs. of Rukmani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj73; RLW2004(1)Raj440; 2004(1)WLC782
Prakash Tatia, J. (1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The facts of the case are that the plaintiff Ramanlal filed suit No. CO17/1965 in the court of Munsif, Banswara against his tenant Harish Chandra, which was decreed for arrears of rent but relief of eviction was refused as notice for eviction was not legal.(3). The landlord Ramanlal filed another Suit No. 20/1967 which was decreed on 14.11.1968. Ramanlal instituted execution petition wherein Dhurilal (who was father of the decree-holder Ramanlal) resisted delivery of possession of the suit property in execution of the decree obtained by plaintiff Raman Lal against Harish Chandra on the ground that objector Dhuri Lal is owner of the property in dispute and he is in possession of the shop in dispute and not bound by the decree passed in Suit No. 20/1967.(4). Faced with this objection, the plaintiff Raman Lal submitted petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the executing court. The executing court rejected the objection of ...
Tag this Judgment!L.M.P. Precession Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Ram Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj37; RLW2004(2)Raj712; 2004(1)WLC232
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 10th Feb., 1999.2. This Court admitted the revision petition on 12th May, 2000 on the plea raised by the petitioner that whether in case the plaintiff already led evidence in the first instance itself on the issues burden whereof was upon the defendant, can be led evidence in rebuttal again.3. The trial Court in its order dated 10th Feb., 1999 observed that the plaintiff led evidence only on issue Nos. 3 & 4, burden of which was upon the plaintiff and also observed that the plaintiff while disclosing the evidence, kept the right of rebuttal reserved in the presence of the counsel for the defendant, which was never objected by the defendant and therefore, the trial Court permitted the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the plaintiff led full evidence on the issue of which burden was upon the defendant and therefore, legal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »