Rajasthan Court October 2004 Judgments
Sohan Mertiya Vs. the Dist. Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj431; 2005(1)WLC447
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 26.4.2004 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to release the post retirement benefits along with interest (a) 24% per annum.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) That at the time of retirement, the petitioner was holding the post of Senior Munshrim in the office of respondent No. 1 (the Dist. And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur) and the retired on 30.11.2003 after attaining the age of superannuation through order dated 8.9.2003 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Dist. And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur).ii) That further case of the petitioner is that when he retired through order dated 8.9.2003 (Annex. 1), at that time, no departmental enquiry was pending against him, but as per the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, he was not given all post retirement benef...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Chobisa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj389
Harbans Lal, J.1. These writ petitions, which have been filed by way of public interest litigation, highlight issues of grave environmental and ecological degradation due to large scale illegal, un-authorised, un-scientific and un-systematic mining activities being undertaken in violation of the provisions of various enactments, rules framed and notifications issued thereunder, and the orders of the Supreme Court and this court. Some of the petitioners have made a grievance with regard to the operation of the stone crushers and use of explosive substances for winning the minerals from the mines on the ground that they are causing air and nose pollution. Since these writ petitions pertain to and address the common issues, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7544/03 has been filed by one Ashwani Chobisa, who is a practicing lawyer, in the Rajasthan High Court and claims himself to be a public spirited and keenly interested...
Tag this Judgment!Suo Motu Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj82; RLW2005(2)Raj1437
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. The city of Jaipur has an important place in the history of the State of Rajasthan. City of Jaipur is steeped in history. It has rich mosaic. It has ancient monuments, palaces, Havelies, unique architecture, art, culture and festivals. It being the capital of the State deserves to showcase the history, heritage and culture of the people of the city. But the city has since been suffering from slew of maladies. These have to some extent clouded its magnificence and splendour. This has also adversely affected the quality of life of the residents. Decay of the city must be prevented and it needs to be restored to its pristine glory, beauty, grace and charm. Keeping this in view, we issued suo motu notice to the concerned authorities on August 13, 2003. A nudge to them to perform their statutory duties and to remind them that the city of Jaipur deserves to be rid of filth and squalor, heaps of dirt, piles of garbage, unauthorized constructions, encroachments, stench a...
Tag this Judgment!Judicial Officers of Kota Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj924; 2005(1)WLC222
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. The only question, which presently requires determination, is whether the State can retain the three buildings constructed over the land allotted to the High Court, in which, the offices of the Director Local Bodies; Director Social Welfare; and, the Public Works Department are being run. The Government of Rajasthan had appointed a committee in July 1954, for advising it on the question of allotment of the site for the erection of the building for the High Court Bench at Jaipur. The Committee had selected the land to the sought of the Secretariat building. Out of the total area of 30 bighas, 17.5 bighas belonged to the Maharaja of Jaipur and this was part of the covenant land. The Maharaja agreed to part with the land on the basis of the proposals of the Government for the exchange of the aforesaid land, with that of the land lying behind the Viman Bhawan. The Maharaja had expressed his willingness for the exchange of the land through the letter of Rao Chandrapal...
Tag this Judgment!Aanjana (Smt.) and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj988
H.R. Panwar, J.1. An application has been filed on behalf of Hari Shanker through his counsel Mr. P.S. Rathore seeking transposition of respondent No. 2 Hari Shanker as petitioner. From the petition filed by Smt. Aanjana W/o Hari Shanker, it appears that respondent Hari Shanker has common cause and seeks the similar relief. In the circumstances therefore, the application seeking transposition is allowed. Respondent No. 2 be impleaded as transposed petitioner No. 2. Amended cause title has already been filed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is finally heard and is being disposed of at the admission stage.2. By the instant petition under Section 482 CrPC, petitioner seek quashing the proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No. 107/2004 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara for the offences under Section 498A IPC.3. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that petitioner No. t filed a complaint before the Trial Court, on which ultimat...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Parihar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj171; [2005(105)FLR694]; RLW2005(3)Raj1783; 2004(4)WLC724
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Heard at the admission stage.2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, who is a practitioner lawyer of this Court, against the respondents Union of India through Ministry of Law, New Delhi and Rajasthan High Court through Registrar General, Jodhpur on 20-9-2004 with the prayer that preventive measures be taken to prevent the falling of human values in this Court and further, the respondent No. 1 Union of India be directed to decide the representation dated 21-6-2004 (Ex. 9) made by the petitioner to the Minister of Law, Central Government, New Delhi.3. From a bare reading of the present writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved from the conduct, behaviour and judgments passed by some of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court highlighting some of the instances of them. The petitioner has based his petition on several headings such as human values, fight against injust...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj482
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Brief was Kiran's span of life, fleeter than the lightning flash. She was chastised, her liberties were taken undeterred and she was burnt to death in the bathroom of her in-laws house. Her husband, the appellant (herein after described as accused) along with three other co-accused was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra District Baran in Sessions Case No. 344/1992 for having committed offence under Section 304B, 302, 201 and 498A IPC. Learned Trial Judge while acquitting the co-accused persons, convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months.Under Section 498A IPC:To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months.Under Section 201 IPC:To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Three Years and fine of Rs. 500/-, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Birbal Khan Chandan Khan and Party
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Raj)252
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before us.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal has found that no substantial question of law arises out of its appellate order dt. 19th Dec., 1994 by which the penalty of Rs. 1,23,062 in respect of additions made in the assessment had been deleted.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the substantial questions of law do arise out of Tribunal's order dt. 11th July, 1995, and the finding of the Tribunal that no substantial question of law arises out of its appellate order dt. 19th Dec., 1994 is erroneous and the application deserves to be allowed.4. According to the applicant--the CIT, following substantial questions of law do arise out of Tribunal's order :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,23,062 imposed under Section 271(1)(c)...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Abdul Raseed and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC15; 2005ACJ1766; RLW2005(2)Raj927; 2005(1)WLC279
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed against the Award dated January 20, 1992, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, decreeing the total claim for a sum of Rs. 1,10,400/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 9.6.1989. The claim amount was ordered to be paid within three months, failing which 15% interest was ordered to be paid.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that one Abdul Saeed was working at Conductor of Tempo. On April 30, 1989, at 2.45 p.m. when the Tempo after, taking passengers from Sanganeri Gate, started for Jal Mahal and reached the turn of Shanker Gate, Bus No. RSG 2532 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, being driven rashly and negligently by Shri Munnalal-Driver of RSRTC, came from behind in fast speed and dashed with the Tempo, as a result of which Abdul Saeed received grievous injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on May 5, 1989.3. A case, bearing No. 87/89, was registered un...
Tag this Judgment!Mamta (Kumari) and anr. Vs. Sardar Bal Jeet Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC775; RLW2005(2)Raj930
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the Award dated January 24, 1995, passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur city, Jaipur, whereby the claim-petition of the claimants was dismissed.2. Before I proceed to discuss the matter, it is relevant to mention the relevant facts of the claim petition. The claim petition was filed by minor Kumar Mamta D/o. Shambhu Dayal through her mother and guardian Smt. Geeta Sharma before the Tribunal Jaipur city, Jaipur, which was registered as MACT case No. 578/89.3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants' father- Shambhu Dayal, who had been selected for training of Senior Teacher, was taking training at that relevant time of the accident and the training was likely to be completed in the months of May, 1979. After the training was over, if appointed as a Teacher, he was likely to get Rs. 700A per month.4. On July 16, 1979, at 9.30 a.m., Shambhudayal has to leave for Mahapura. He went to the Bus Stand, where o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »