Rajasthan Court November 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
indu Chauhan (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2107
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the order impugned and challan papers.2. First Information Report was lodged by Harendra Singh son of deceased alleging therein that he along with his father was going on a Motor Cycle, the petitioner got the motor cycle stopped outside her house and dragged the deceased into her house. There were two more persons namely Rav Chouhan and Narendra Chouhan.3. So far as dragging of the deceased is concerned, it has not been corroborated by the statement of other alleged eye witnesses Vikram Singh and Bhupendra Singh. On the contrary, Vikram Singh has stated that the deceased had illicit relations with the petitioner and therefore, he was on visiting terms to the petitioner.4. From the statement of the witnesses it appears that none of the eye witnesses have seen who fired the gun. It was a closed door house where they heard soun...
Asha Devi Gupta (Smt.) and anr. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1095; 2005(1)WLC237
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Husband of petitioner No. 1, who was working as Head Master, had died while in service on 16.8.1994. On representation been made, elder son of petitioner No. 1 was given compassionate appointment on the post of LDC vide order dated 9.5.1995. As the ill-luck would have it, the elder son of petitioner No. 1, who was given compassionate appointment, also expired in a road accident on 20.1.1996. Since then, petitioner No. 1 is making representation for giving compassionate appointment to her younger son.2. The compassionate appointment to younger son of the petitioner No. 1 has been denied only on the ground that under the relevant rules, there is no provision to give compassionate appointment to the brother of the deceased employee treating the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment for her younger son on account of death of elder son.3. The main object and aim of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Govt. Servants Rule...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›