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.
Hanuwant Singh Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj1; 2006(1)WLC618
Ashok Parihar, J.1. This is yet another unfortunate case where a person has to seek protection of this Court against inaction and indifferent casual approach of the authorities concerned.2. While the petitioner serving as Additional District Magistrate (In-charge of Law & Order), Jaipur City, Jaipur, there has been an encounter between the police and militants of Khalistan Liberation Force, an internationally banned group of terrorists, in the Model Town area of Jagatpura, Jaipur in the night of 25th/26th of February, 1995. One terrorist - Navneet Singh Kandia - was killed and other terrorists managed to escape from the spot. When the petitioner came to know about the incident he rushed to the spot immediately and supervised the search operation in which an empty leather briefcase was traced containing one car key with a paper slip attached thereto. Petitioner, at his own initiative, started thorough investigation of Transport Department records and traced out the Head-quarters of inte...
Moola Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj492; 2006(2)WLC513
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 21.4.1999 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, who has to his credit the degree of B.A., which he qualified in the year 1994 and also holds the degree of Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) since 1996 and was eligible to hold the post of Physical Education Teacher Gr.III, encadered under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1971')3. An advertisement of appointments to the posts of Teacher Gr.III in different disciplines including Teachers in Physical Education Gr.III to fill up the vacancies for 1997-1998 was issued by the District Education Officer (Boys), Banner. For belonged to General Category and rest to the Reserved Categories. The appellant-petitioner, in pursuance thereof, applied for the post.4. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, after...
State of Raj. and anr. Vs. Revti Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj680; 2006(1)WLC441
ORDER 41 RULE 27 CPC:6. Before adverting to the substantial questions of law, I at the outset, deem it appropriate to dispose of the application of the defendant filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.7. It is well settled that production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 is permitted only under three circumstances which are:-Where i the trial court had refused to admit the evidence though it ought to have been admitted;(ii) the evidence was not available to the party despite exercise of due diligence; and(iii) the appellate court required the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature.8. All the litigants before the Court of law are equal. The State can not be granted any greater indulgence in the admission of additional evidence than a private litigant as is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava : (1958)IILLJ273SC .9. It Is Inexplicable as to why the defen...
Maggi Bai (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj910; 2006(2)WLC346
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard iearned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Panney Singh learned Counsel for C.B.I, on whose application the impugned order was passed.2. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the order was passed by the Trial Court on 2.6.2005 on application moved by the prosecuting agency, C.B.I, under Section 13 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter called Ordinance 1944) for confiscating the property attached under the provisions of the said Act to the Government. The learned trial Judge has allowed the application of the respondent for confiscating the property belonging to the applicants, which was under attachment order.3. The appeal, against the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, had been filed before this Court and is still pending as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 480/2005 which has been ordered to be heard along with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 505/2005, filed by Deep Chand.4. It is contended that in view of the pendency of th...
Maya Devi Vs. Nand Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC316
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant.2. The injured appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by her in an accident, which took place on 12.6.1989 arising out of use of motor vehicle, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation in favour of the appellant.3. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant contended only one submission that in this accident she suffered severe injuries resulting in miscarriage on her, but no compensation has been awarded for the same by the Tribunal, Therefore, a suitable amount of compensation may be awarded.4. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant as well as the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue Nos. 1 and 3 and also the entire record of the Tribunal.5. While deciding issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that from the evidence available o...
Sheela Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC390
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The claimant appellant has filed this appeal challenging the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 128 of 1990 vide judgment/award dated 2.8.1996 in respect of issue Nos. 1 and 4. In issue No. 1, Tribunal held that scooter rider was also responsible for this accident. In issue No. 4, the Tribunal held that the deceased-sdooter rider was responsible for this accident upto 70% whereas bus driver was responsible upto 30%. While deciding issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal passed an award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000, but in view of finding of issue Nos. 1 and 4, deducted 70% out of it and directed to make the payment of remaining amount of 30% i.e., Rs. 30,000 as compensation to the appellant.3. Initially, the claimants Mahaveer and Smt. Sheela, parents of deceased Sandeep Jain filed an application for compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›