Rajasthan Court August 2004 Judgments
Smt. Manjulata Vs. Sidhkaran
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj32; RLW2005(1)Raj276; 2004(4)WLC440
1. The instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30th January, 2004 dismissing the appellant's application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to file appeal as an indigent person.2. The necessary facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant Smt. Manjulata married to Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat on 15-2-1982. Out of the wedlock, she gave birth to a male and a female child. Her husband Dr. Jugtawat contracted the second marriage on 28-6-1999 with one Suraan and started living separately in a house at Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur. The appellant continued to reside with both her children viz. Deepak aged about 21 years of age & Rakhi aged about 19 years in the House No. 62-A, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. Admittedly, no divorce has taken place between the appellant and Dr. Jugtawat and, as such, the marriage still subsists, The respondent Sidhkaran, father of Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat, filed a suit for possession o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Godara Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj548; 2004(4)WLC715
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was accused on the file of learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur bearing Sessions Case No. 40/1998. Learned Special Judge vide judgment dated May 12, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-Under Section. 302 IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to further suffer four MonthsRigorous Imprisonment.Under Section. 201 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years andfine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer oneMonth Rigorous Imprisonment.Substantial sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story runs as under:-On August 27, 1997 around 2.00 am the informant Ram Singh (PW. 5) submitted a written report at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur with the averments that in the morning of preceding day while the informant and Raj Kumar (now deceased) were having break fast in the house of Bhanwar Lal Godara (appellant)...
Tag this Judgment!Suo Motu Vs. Principal, Chief Conservator, Forest and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj30; RLW2005(1)Raj242
1. Pursuant to the notice dated 25-8-2004 the reports of Divisional Forest Officers of Jodhpur, Pali, Nagaur and Barmer have been presented in Court today. Let the reports be taken on record.2. The Divisional Forest Officers of Jodhpur, Barmer and Nagaur are present. According to them trees which are cut, removed or felled outside the forest area are beyond the jurisdiction of the Forest Department and they cannot take action in regard thereto. This is a misconception. It appears that definition of the forest produce as occurring in Section 2 (4) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 has not been taken note of. Section 2 (4) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 reads as under :-'2 (4) 'forest produce' includes.-(a) the following whether found in, or brought from a forest or not, that is to say:-timber, charcoal, caoutchoue, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds and myra, myrabolams, and(b) the following when found in, or brought from, a forest, that ...
Tag this Judgment!MohinuddIn Vs. Smt. Sushila
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj410; 2005(1)WLC382
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Heard at admission stage.2. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2003 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 22/2001 by which the appeal of the appellant-defendant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 3, Jodhpur in civil original suit No. 6/2000 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against appellant-defendant for eviction from shops in question, were upheld.3. In this second appeal, the findings recorded by both the courts below on issue No. 7, which reads as follows, have been challenged:-'Whether the need of the plaintiff's son Ramesh (PW2) for the shops in question for doing business, which was bonafide and reasonable, can be satisfied by making partial eviction of the shops in question or not.' 4. It arises in the following circumstances:-The plaintiff-respondent filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR404]; RLW2005(1)Raj283; 2004(4)WLC445
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 13th December, 2002 rendered in Original application No. 29/2002, whereby the petitioners (herein) were directed to consider the case of the second respondent for being promoted to the post of Office Superintendent Gr.-I in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 19.09.1996 i.e., the date from which persons junior to him were promoted.2. The second respondent was appointed as Clerk in the pay- scale of Rs. 260-400 in the Railways. It appears that the respondent was denied promotion as Sr. Clerk. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioners the respondent preferred a writ petition in the year 1981 seeking direction to the appellants to promote him as Sr. Clerk. Subsequently, the writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench. The Tribunal accepted the writ petition and the same was treated as Original Application and di...
Tag this Judgment!Gauttam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ981; 2005(1)WLC521
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order impugned dated 22-7-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Pratapgarh Camp at Nimbahera (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 84/2003, whereby the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant thus :--Under Section 376, I.P.C. : Seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rupees 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.Under Section 366, I.P.C. : Two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment.Under Section 384. I.P.C. : One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rupees 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.Under Section 344. I.P.C. : One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rupees 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's sim...
Tag this Judgment!Sameer Sharma Vs. M.N.i.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj871; 2004(4)WLC749
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-1. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to register the petitioner for 2nd Semester in Master of Management Studies (MMS) Course for which petitioner has already paid fee;2. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in examination of rest 4 papers of 1st Semester alongwith examination of IInd Semester;3. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be restrained from rusticating the petitioner from Institute on the ground of his short-fall in attendance in 1st Semester due to his accident and not clearing all papers of 1st Semester.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for MMS Course Entrance Test, 2003 which was held on 2.6.2003. Since the petitioner was declared pass in the entrance test, group discussion and interview was conducted on 3.6.2003 and was sele...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Shekhar Vs. Parasmani Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC136; 2006ACJ1980; RLW2005(3)Raj1795; 2005(3)WLC96
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The question that emerges for consideration in this writ petition is whether a consenting party, who had agreed for the settlement before the Lok Adalat after which an award was also passed in his favour could be allowed to challenge the same before the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in absence of any plea that the settlement took place under any kind of duress or undue influence.2. The claimant-appellant suffered an injury as a result of the accident caused by Truck bearing No. RJ-14-G-2698 which was insured with the respondent No. 3-The New India Assurance Company Ltd. A proceedings was therefore, initiated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur and while this proceeding was pending, the matter was referred to the Lok-Adalat which was held in the year 1996. The claimant-appellant who is working as Lower Division Clerk in M/s Parasmani Road Lines Pvt. Ltd., had sustained injuries on several parts of his body...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Puri and ors. Vs. Kalu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj77; RLW2005(1)Raj366; 2004(4)WLC513
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The revision petition has filed by the petitioners - Judgment debtors against the order dtd. 18.5.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Merta in Execution Case No. 3/2004 by which the application for execution of the decree dtd. 14.1.1970 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Merta was allowed and the learned Executing Court held that in terms of decree dtd. 14.1.1970 the respondents - decree holder were entitled to perform Seva Puja in the Bhanwal Mala Ji Temple and also to receive offerings and for that warrant for possession was issued so that they could make Seva Puja and receive offerings, be quashed and set aside.2. It may be stated here that Ram Pal Puri (present decree holders - respondents are Legal Representatives of Rampal Puri) filed a civil suit No. 369/1953 in the Court of Munsif, Merta for declaration against Kuna Puri and Mohan Puri (judgment debtors petitioners are legal representatives of Kuna Puri and Mohan Puri) seeking declaration regar...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Sampat Raj Mewara
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR134]; (2005)IILLJ44Raj; RLW2005(1)Raj360; 2004(4)WLC382
Krishan Kumar, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.9.2002 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3079/2002.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner is working as Electronic Automatic Machine Operator (EAMO) at State Bank of India, Pali Marwar. He was entrusted with the work on the post of draft clearing. As per the instructions of the Bank, some drafts of Bank were reportedly lost and accordingly the numbers of those drafts were installed in the computer as such the lost drafts should not be cleared. The instructions were received from the higher authorities, that the drafts issued in the old format should not be cleared/passed. It has been alleged by the appellants that the respondent-petitioner had the enough knowledge about the instructions issued by the higher authorities and of the lost drafts. In spite of the above fact, the respondent-petitioner has said to have deleted the command of lost ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »