Rajasthan Court April 2004 Judgments
Shiv Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1745; 2004(3)WLC474
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. With the consent of learned counsel for parties the matter has been taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under:-(i) to quash and set aside the charge sheet dated March 2, 1998, punishment order dated April 3, 1998 and the appellate order dated September 18, 2001;(ii) to direct respondents to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner as if punishment was never awarded;3. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner was appointed as Excise Inspector Gr. II on July 26, 1996 on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner joined his duties in Excise Circle Hanumangarh on September 26, 1996. The petitioner remained on leave from December 1, 1996 to December 16, 1996 (fifteen days) and from December 17, 1996 to January 3, 1997 (eighteen days). The circular dated May 18, 1987 has been issued whereby the target of cases has been fixed in Circle 'A' and 'B' for essentially registering the excise c...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Bhansali Vs. the Judge, Family Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj257; I(2005)DMC622; RLW2004(3)Raj2009; 2004(3)WLC250
Garg, J.(1). This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indian has been filed by the petitioner husband against the respondents on 23.1 .2004 with the prayer that by appropriate writ order or direction, order dated 20.11.2003 (Annex.2) passed by the respondent No. 1 Family Court, Udaipur by which the application filed by the respondent No. 2 Smt. Kailash wife in the proceedings under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') was allowed in the manner that the petitioner-husband would pay Rs, 5000/- to the respon dent No. 2 Smt. Kailash wife as counsel fee and litigation expenses, be quashed and set aside.(2). The case of the petitioner-husband as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioner-husband filed a divorce petition in the year 1998 before the respondent No. 1 Family Court, Udaipur seeking divorce against the respondent No. 2 Smt. Kailash (wife) and that divorce petition was regis...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC103; AIR2004Raj250; RLW2004(4)Raj2321
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. All the aforesaid writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in all of them common questions of law and facts are involved.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6759/20032. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 29-11-2003 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment dated 7-11-2003 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No. 2 State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') by which the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the respondent Nos. 4, to 6, namely, Nirmal Kumar, Shiv Bhagwan and Satvir respectively and set aside the order dated 13-6-2000 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 3 Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner rejecting the applications of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for renewal of the permits on the inter-State route Bhadra-Hissar via Bagla, be quashed and set aside.3. The case of the petitioner as ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ211; 2004WLC(Raj)UC706
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is by the insurance company to limit its liability towards third party to indemnify the insured within the precincts of the statutory liability fixed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act of 1939'), which was in force at the time the accident in question had taken place.2. This is the second time in this case the insurance company is before this court.3. The accident in question took place on 20.9.1984 resulting in the death of one Prabhu Ram whose legal representatives are respondent Nos. 1 to 9. The respondent No. 10 is driver and the respondent No. 11 is owner of the vehicle.4. The Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 119 of 1984 was lodged by the claimants and by award dated 27.4.1988, a sum of Rs. 1,04,000 was determined as compensation payable to the claimants which the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay to the dependants/legal representatives of the deceased, Prabhu Ram. That part of the award i...
Tag this Judgment!Kunj Behari Rungta Vs. Shree Shyam Radio Taxi Services (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC592; [2004]121CompCas644(Raj); [2004]53SCL404(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record of the company petition.2. It is really shocking and surprising that the petitioner has not taken care even to mention in the petition under which provision of the Companies Act, 1956 the same has been filed. It is necessary and may be the requirement of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1949 to mention the provisions under which a petition/application is filed. It is expected from the petitioner to remain careful in future.3. Having gone through the contents of the petition I find that it is a petition for winding-up of the respondent company - Shree Shyam Radio Taxi Services Private Limited, Jaipur. The ground on which the winding-up of the respondent Company is prayed for is its inability to pay the debts.4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the promoter Director of the respondent Company. It is admitted by him in para No. 6 of the petition. He has a shareholding of 3333 equity sh...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Vs. Smt. Sheela and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC407; RLW2004(4)Raj2461; 2004(3)WLC503
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The claimant respondent Smt. Sheela lodged a petition under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short '1923 Act') before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner Dausa (for short 'Commissioner') with the averments that her husband Dilip Chand @ Duli Chand, who was employed as a driver on Truck No. RJ-29/G- 0205 owned by respondent Rameshwar Prasad, met with an accident in the course of his employment and expired on July 20, 1997. The Commissioner vide judgment dated October 31, 2001 allowed the petition and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,78,490/-along with the interest at the rate of 12% from July 20, 1997. The National Insurance Company, who was joined as respondent before the Commissioner, assailed the said award by filing appeal under Section 30 of the 1923 Act in the High Court Learned Single Judge vide order dated April 11, 2002 dismissed the appeal. The appellant National Insurance Company in the instant Special Appeal seek...
Tag this Judgment!All India Equality Forum and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2455; 2004(3)WLC38
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, they have been analogously heard and are taken up for disposal together.2. The All India Equality Forum (for short 'AIEF') in writ petition No. 4590/2003 seeks to quash the Notification dated December 28, 2002 that pertains to determination of seniority of persons holding the posts in different services in the State of Rajasthan. The AIEF also prays that benefit of consequential seniority may be declared to be available only in respect of posts/services where persons belonging to SC/ST category are not adequately represented and the selections made by Departmental Promotion Committees in respect of services including RAS/RPS be reviewed, re- called, quashed and set aside. In the alternative AIEF prays to declare that the benefit of consequential seniority pursuant to 85th amendment of the Constitution may not be given in respect of promotions made prior to June 17,1995 when the said amendm...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurav A. JaIn Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Techn ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj247
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 6-7-2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for being awarded the merit certificate for third and fourth year and the gold medal for the integrated course of B.E. Agriculture after ignoring the remarks of make-up.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :i) That the petitioner took admission in B.E. in Agriculture subject in the year 1999 in Rajasthan Agriculture University now known as Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 1 -- University). The petitioner obtained degree in B.E. in Agriculture subject from respondent No. 1 -- University.ii) Further case of the petitioner is that in the Third Year of B.E. Course in the year 2001, the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gaumti Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4073
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of instant revision petitioner under Section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, dated 29-6-2001 refusing to interfere with the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, dated 31st July, 2000 summoning the petitioner to face trial along with other accused persons for offence under Section 324/34, I.P.C.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 7-1-1999 one Mahaveer lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that in the morning while he was standing outside the house of Shri Khetpal, his neighbour Kashi Ram and his three sons and nephew arrived armed with weapons. Kashi Ram was armed with a hockey stick and Rakesh with a gun, his nephew was having lathi in his hand, so also Ranjeet and Anil. Rakesh fired the gun hitting him. He sustained pallet injuries on his chest. Khetpal also sustained injuries on hand. It is further al...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kishan Agarwal (Modi) Vs. Dr. Pitambar Dayal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2408; 2004(3)WLC782
Goyal, J.1. The defendant-tenant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 21.2.2002. The parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a civil suit for eviction on 12.8.1998 with the averments that the suit house No. H3, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur was let-out to the defendant in the year 1962 on monthly rent of Rs. 265/-. Present rate of rent is Rs. 2000/- per month. The plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide requirement, material alterations, assigning, sub-letting or parting with the possession of some parts of the suit premises giving the details with regard to each of the grounds of eviction.3. The defendant in his written statement while admitting the tenancy denied all the grounds of eviction with pleas that the plaintiff is in possession of his own accommo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »