Rajasthan Court December 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.
Nasru Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ954; RLW2006(1)Raj471; 2006(1)WLC706
Narendra Kumar Jain, J. 1. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) Alwar in Sessions Case No. 48/01 whereby accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months R.I.2. PW3 Jormal, father of prosecutrix Sahruna PW.1 lodged a written report on 3.10.2000 at P.S. Sadar, Alwar wherein it was alleged that his daughter Sahruna was coming from his agricultural field on 1.10.2000 at about 5 p.m. and when she was on the way near field of Nawab Hasan, the accused. Nasru S/o Jhamman came all of sudden from his own field and caught hold his daughter Sahruna and committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. When he came in late evening then she told him about this incident. In morning a Panchayat was convened and Jhamman father of the accused was summoned and he admitted the guilt bu...
Nand Kishore Sharma Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ704Raj; RLW2006(1)Raj467; 2006(1)WLC637
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Common questions that arise for our consideration in the instant appeals are as under:(i) Whether the termination of the appellants (for short 'workman') by the respondent (for short 'Corporation') was the termination simplicitor?(ii) Whether the workmen were terminated from the service on the ground of misconduct?(iii) Whether the applications filed by the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal Jaipur under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') were maintainable?2. Learned Tribunal rejected the applications of workmen filed under Section 33A and held that the termination of the workmen was simplicitor. Since the workmen were not removed on the ground of misconduct, the Corporation was not under obligation to conduct the inquiry therefore applications of the workmen were not maintainable.3. The workmen assailed the award by filing the writ petitions but the learned Single Judge did not find any fault in the awards and dismissed...
Manju Sharma (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj700; 2006(1)WLC647
Shiv Kumar Sharma1. The order of learned Single Bench whereby it declined to declare the appellant as semi permanent, is under challenge in the instant appeal.2. Contextual facts depict that the appellant being Post Graduate in Arts and Diploma holder in Computer Programming, was initially appointed on job work basis against a vacant post of Computer Operator on a fix salary Rs. 1200/- per month, thereafter fix salary of Rs. 2000/- per month was granted to her. The prayer of the appellant in the writ petition was that since she had continuously worked from 1994 to December 1997 she was entitled to semi permanent status as was granted to similarly situated employee viz. Rajesh Singhal. The respondents in their reply however averred that Rajesh Singhal, Ashok Mittal and Vinod Singh were engaged on daily wage basis, while the appellant was appointed on contract basis, therefore the cases of the appellant was distinguishable with that of Rajesh Singhal, Alok Mittal and Vinod Singh. Agreein...
Devi Narayan Mathur Vs. Shital Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj556; 2006(2)WLC104
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Learned trial court after extending benefit of first default to the tenant defendant, dismissed the suit for eviction of the plaintiff landlord. Learned first appellate court however reversed the finding of trial Court and allowed the appeal of the landlord holding mat the tenant had committed second default. It is against the decree of the first appellate court that the instant appeal has been filed by the tenant.2. 1 have heard learned counsel for the appellant and scrutinised the material on record.3. Since the rent was deposited after expiry of period of limitation, the finding of learned trial Court was rightly reversed by the learned first -appellate Court. In Nasiruddih v. Sita Ram Agarwal : [2003]1SCR634 , the Apex Court indicated that:-The word 'shall', which is ordinarily Imperative in nature, has been used in Sub-section (4) of Section 13. The power of the Court has also been limited to the extent that it can extend time for such deposit not exceeding...
Amolak Singh Gulab Singh Vs. the Civil Judge and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj414
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. 1. These four writ petitions, although relate to different Civil Original Suits, involve a common short point and have been submitted against the similar nature order dated 8.8.2005 passed in all the four suits, hence were heard together and are taken up for final disposal by this common order.2. The petitioner M/s. Amolak Singh Gulab Singh is the defendant in four Civil Original Suits filed against it by different plaintiffs for recovery of different amount which are pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Ganganagar. For clarification, the particulars of these four suits, their valuation and the names of the plaintiffs (who are respondent No. 2 in the respective writ petition) could be usefully referred as under:--------------------------------------------------------------------------Writ Petition No. CO. Suit No. Name of Plaintiff Valuation of Suit--------------------------------------------------------------------------6033/2005 20/2004 Man...
Hakam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1346; RLW2006(1)Raj862; 2006(2)WLC362
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.3.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar convicting the appellant Hakam Singh of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/25(1-B) of Arms Act and sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment on each count.2. The brief factual backdrop of the case, as emerged during the trial is that one Surain Singh a resident of 12 GB, Tehsil, Vijay Nagar died in year 1988 leaving behind two sons appellant Hakam Singh, PW.4 Tara Singh and four daughters Mahendra Kaur, Jogendra Kaur, Pritam Kaur and Tej Kaur. P.W.5 Hardev Singh is the son of Jogendra Kaur. Sardul Singh is the son o...
Sobhag Kanwar (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj857; 2006(2)WLC280
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. The petitioner along with her sister Roop Bai filed revenue suit for declaration of their rights and possession over the lands of Khasra Nos. 29, 72, 75/1 and 75/2 measuring 27 bighas and 14 biswas situated in village chapras, Tehsil Bundi, By order dated 10th April, 1978 the Assistant Collector-11, Bundi dismissed the suit. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 24th April, 1981. She then filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue which too was dismissed on 10th October, 1988. She seeks quashing of the said orders. She also seeks quashing of the order of Collector, Bundi dated 03rd November, 1955 holding that the lands escheated to the Darbar/State in terms of Sub- section 32 of the Bundi Tenancy Act, 1942 on the death of Kishan Dan. She also seeks quashing of mutation No. 29 dated 02nd February, 1958 mentioning the name of respondent No. 6 Modu with respect to the lands. The petitioner further seeks declarat...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(204)ELT230(Raj); 2006(2)WLC552
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 25th May, 2004.2. The substantial question which was framed at the time of admission which arose for consideration reads as under:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 57-T(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the respondent to avail the modvat credit on ground of delayed filing of declaration3. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the present purpose which led to this appeal are that the respondent assessee has availed MODVAT credit of Duty paid on capital goods received in factory as per Rule 57-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, declaration required to be filed under Section 57-T(1) was filed after 3 months of the receipt of the capital goods in factory and availi...
Mahmud Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj380
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 23.3.2005 in Case No. 236/2004 rejecting the application of the petitioner to summon witnesses for cross-examination. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Jasoda has filed the aforesaid case for eviction of the petitioner from the premises on the ground of bona fide personal need.2. Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 provides for special procedure for trial of eviction cases. It permits evidence by affidavit. However, the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Rent Tribunal, may in the interest of justice call witness for examination or cross-examination. The petitioner filed application to summon the witnesses who have affirmed affidavits in support of the respondent's case. The petitioner stated that the affidavits were based on false and concocted grounds and the deponents were related to the applicant i.e., respondent herein. The Tribunal observed that the application did not specify whic...
Shiv Raj Pareek and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj849; 2006(2)WLC401
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This bunch of writ petitions has been filed on common grounds by various incumbents who are seeking appointment on the post of teachers Grade-Ill on the basis of policy decision taken by the State for giving regular appointment as teacher grade III but the petitioners could not get the appointments because of the order passed by the State Government dated 31.7.2003, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure- R/l in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12/2003, wherein it is stated that the Education Minister called a meeting of the District Education Officers and instructed that no steps be taken for appointing teachers out of the contract teachers till further orders.2. According to the petitioners, a scheme was floated by the State Government in the year 1985 for the appointment on the post of teacher grade III on contract basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month. Large number of persons including the petitioners were provided appointments on the posts of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »