Rajasthan Court January 2005 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.
Bhanwar Lal Vs. Lekhraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC886
Dalip Singh, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed by the appellants against the award dated 5.5.2000 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk in MACT Case Nos. 373/1998 and 375/1998 in the matter of award of compensation at the interim stage on the basis of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and raise a common question and arise out of the same accident. Hence, they are being decided together.2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that it was not open to the learned Tribunal at the interim stage without any evidence having been led by the parties prima facie to come to a conclusion and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation and hold only as the owner and driver liable to pay the amount under no fault liability under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The other submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that at the stage of determination of the no fault liability i...
Ram Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj993; 2005(2)WLC58
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This special appeal under Ordinance 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinances, 1949 (for short 'the Ordinances of 1949') has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 261/2003 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947').2. The facts giving rise to this special appeal may be summarized as follows;The appellants' services were terminated vide order dated 31.3.1992 passed by the respondents and thereafter, the State Government through Notification dated 1.5.1997 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Bikaner for adjudication:-'Whether the termination of services of workmen Sh. Ram Singh Jat and Ors. on 31.3.92 by the employer Dy. Conservator of Forests, Churu and the Range Forest Officer, Taranagar is legal and jus...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Vishnu Lal Nai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1545; 2005(2)WLC38
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This writ petition by the Union of India and others is directed against the order dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 212/1996 whereby the Tribunal allowed the application submitted by respondent No. 1 Vishnu Lal Nai and while maintaining the findings of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority on the charges against him, modified the punishment awarded to him.2. The facts leasing to the present petition could be summarised thus: Respondent No. 1 Vishnu Lal Nai was working as Postman at the Sub-Post Office, Devgarh when he was served with a charge-sheet on 21.10.1994 with the allegations that while working as postman at Sub-Post Office, Devgarh on 17.8.1994 at about 17.50 hours in the evening, he entered the office of Inspector, Post Office, Devgarh and misbehaved with the Inspector, Shri Pratap Thakur by hurling abuses at him and threw down two chairs of the office which fel...
Kailash Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1828; 2005(2)WLC111
Ashok Parihar, J.1. This is yet another case of pathetic insensitive attitude and mechanical approach of the authorities concerned.2. The petitioner, being retired from Government Service, is member of the Rajasthan State Medical Pensioners' Concession Scheme. Under the provisions of the scheme, the wife is also entitled for free medical aid. As has been submitted by the petitioner, his wife Smt. Laxmi Devi has been suffering from ailments of Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, Thyroid, Heart & Kidney Diseases. Her condition became serious on 27.04.2003 and at about 1'O clock in the mid night, she was rushed to nearby clinic where the Doctor concerned referred her to SMS Hospital/Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur where intensive care treatment was available. It has been submitted that the petitioner took his wife in the critical condition to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. However, in the emergency ward neither immediate care was taken nor any prompt assistance was given. Under the circums...
Narmada Shankar Vs. Bajrang Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2557; 2005(4)WLC654
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased-respondent No. 1 praying for dismissal of the appeal as having abated since the sole-respondent No. 1-Bajrang Lal S/o Bhuralalji died way back on 20th August 2001 and thereafter no application was filed by the appellant to substitute legal representatives of the deceased- respondent. However, an application which was filed later by the counsel for the appellant for substitution was time barred as it was filed after considerably long delay which was much beyond the statutory period of 90 days prescribed for moving such application.2. The counsel for the parties were heard on this application but it could be noticed that in view of the amendment introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 under Order 22, Rule 10-A has been inserted which clearly lays down that it is the duty of the pleader to communicate to the Court regarding the death of a party and thereafter the Court has to ...
Hari NaraIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj588
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application filed on behalf of the accused petitioner Hari Narain.2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for offence under Sections 354 and 323 IPC. He challenged the conviction by filing an appeal before the court of Sessions. Along with appeal, the petitioner also filed an application for suspension of execution of sentence and also prayed that he being a Government servant, the conviction may also be stayed. The learned Sessions Judge suspended the execution of sentence awarded to the petitioner, but did not pass any order on the prayer of the petitioner for stay of conviction. Thereafter the petitioner again moved an application before the Sessions Judge and prayed for stay of conviction. But the learned Sessions Judge vide order impugned in this petition rejected the application observing that the court has no power to review its order. The petitioner had specifically averred that he is p...
Anand Mohan Jha and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1365; 2005(2)WLC519
K.S. Rathore, J.1 The petitioners have filed this joint writ petition challenging the order passed by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer by which their examinations are cancelled on account of mass copying.2. The petitioners appeared for the examination of Senior Secondary School (Science), 2004 held in the month of March 2004, as regular students of Govt. Senior Secondary School, Tapukara, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, during the course of examination the examiner has made the complaint regarding mass copying. The matter was examined and after following due process of law the petitioners' examination for 2004 has been cancelled.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.7.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2 the petitioners preferred the writ petition on the ground that all the petitioner having brilliant academic careers and most of the petitioners have secured more than 60% marks. The allegations are alleged against the mass copying against the 50 st...
Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for pe...
Ramdayal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1496; 2005(2)WLC47; 2005WLC(Raj)UC497
Dalip Singh, J.1. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the accused-appellant. First appeal being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 66/ 2000 has been filed through the counsel and the second appeal being D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 1009/2003 was sent by post from the jail by the accused appellant. Since both these appeals are by the same accused and against the same judgment, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. The accused-appellant has preferred these appeals against the impugned judgment dated 8-9-2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 87/1997 convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302, IPC along with fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment, to further undergo ten days imprisonment. The accused appellant was further convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 201 and 364, IPC for five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to fur...
Shiv Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2101
H.R. Panwar, J.1. The notice of final disposal is served on the public prosecutor. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the appeal is being finally heard and disposed of at admission stage.2. By this criminal appeal under Section 449(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant has challenged the orders dated 5.10.2004 and 29.10.2004, passed by a the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur (for short 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Misc. No. 7/2004 whereby the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and forfeited the surety bond and directed to recover a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the appellant.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant appeal are that in Sessions Case No. 244/2001 (State v. Deep Singh and Ors.) pending before the Trial Court, it is alleged that the appellant stood surety to co-accused Jayant Pandey in a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Co-accused Jayant Pandey was released on bail, however, subsequently, he abscond...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »