Rajasthan Court February 2005 Judgments
Narendra Nalwaya Vs. Ishwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC363; 2005CriLJ3610
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.9.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur (for short, 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 1314/2003, whereby the Trial Court discharged the accused-respondent from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the impugned order of discharge, the complainant-petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and the relevant material.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Act was filed by the petitioner-complainant before the Trial Court on 29.5.2003. After holding the inquiry as contemplated under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (f...
Tag this Judgment!Ramotar and ors. Vs. Addl. Distt. Judge (Fast Track) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1482; 2005(2)WLC609
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Sikar. By the aforesaid impugned order the application moved on behalf of the defendant petitioners under Section 10 CPC was rejected.2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are defendant in suit No. 90/2004 whereas respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are plaintiff. The ex-parte decree was passed on 13.9.85 to the effect that the plaintiffs are in continuous possession over the disputed property and he has acquired right on the basis of adverse possession and to protect possession, a decree for permanent injunction was also granted. The plaintiff respondents have moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree. He also simultaneously preferred a first regular appeal before the appellate court. Both the proceedings, i.e., application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the appeal are pending before...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Kishan Garg Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2047; 2005(2)WLC392
R.P. Vyas, J.1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 13.3.90 (Annexure 7), passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, as well as the notice dated 9.4.85 (Annexure 4), issued by the Collector, Chittorgarh be declared invalid and be quashed, with all consequential benefits.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that Shri Bal Kishan Garg-petitioner was appointed as Patwari vide order dated 25.12.1954. For the first time, vide order dated 10.10.75, the petitioner was given compulsory retirement under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules, 1951'). Thereafter, the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement was revoked by a subsequent order dated 4.5.77 and the petitioner was taken back in service.3. For the second time, the petitioner was given compulsory retirement vide order dated 7.4.81, which was challenged by way of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Singal Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj898; 2005(3)WLC134
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner after completing his B.Sc.. Final Examination in the year 2000 applied for the BDS course for the year 2002-04. The petitioner continued to study in the respondent No. 2-college. The petitioner's original certificates were sent to the respondent-University for the purpose of enrollment, but same were returned to the petitioner with remark that since the petitioner does not have 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology subjects, therefore, he is not eligible for enrollment. In response to the above fetter dated 24th May, 2004 of the University, the respondent No. 2-college submitted point-wise reply and made it clear that petitioner passed B.Sc. with 56% marks in aggregate and he has passed in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and he has also passed his fist year science examination with the subjects of Chemistry, Botany, Zoology and English and thereby he became eligible for the adm...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Nath Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1258; 2005(2)WLC593
Rajendra Prasad Vyas, J.1. A common question is involved in both the aforesaid writ petitions, therefore, they are decided by this common order.2. The main question arising for consideration in the Instant petitions is that whether the services rendered by the petitioners from the date of initial appointment from 1964 to 1976 can be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, in view of the Rule 10(2) of me Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Service (Pension) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as to ' Rules, 1995') or from the date of the Contributory Provident Fund.3. The factual aspect of the matter is that the petitioner No. 1, Rajendra Nath Sharma, was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) on 1.5.64 and was confirmed on this post on 1.7.74 and, thereafter, retired on 31.1.2002 as Assistant. Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Bikaner, on attaining the age of superannuation.4. Similarly, Petitioner No. 2, Tilok Chand Kalra, was initially appointed as Lower Div...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1582; 2005(2)WLC476
Suresh Chandra Singhal, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 3.6.1994 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputali, District Jaipur in criminal case No. 539/1989 by which he had acquitted the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 namely; Nathu Lal, Hukum Chand and Prabhati Lal for offence under Section 6 read with Section 11 of the Rajasthan Religious Building & Places Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1954).2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that one Rajendra Soni filed a complaint to the Collector, Jaipur on 15.03.1982 stating therein that in the night of 8.3.1982 the respondents by encroaching a public land on the main way near 'Kharia Kua' opposite the house of the complainant had started construction of Hanuman Temple by exploiting religious feelings of the public as a result of which the entire way has been stopped. It is also...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Chipa Vs. Rsrtc and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1592; 2005(2)WLC533
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Application under Section 33 of the I.D. Act filed by the respondent-Corporation was dismissed the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated 6.10.2004. The approval was not granted by the Tribunal on the ground that no charge has been proved against the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-'(i). by issuing as appropriate writ, order of direction may be pleased to hold the petitioner entitled to be reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits as if no order of termination was ever passed against him;(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Conductor with all consequential benefits with continuity of service;(iii). by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period from 20....
Tag this Judgment!Emarata Ram Pooniya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1755; 2005(2)WLC358
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The appellants by way of separate writ petitions challenged the process of selection on the post of Teachers Gr.II/Senior Teachers, pursuant to the zone-wise advertisements viz; Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Udaipur, Ajmer & Churu. The respondents after due consideration of merit in accordance with the prescribed procedure, issued provisional merit list of 5712 candidates on 19th September 2003. On coming to know of the result, out of thousands of unsuccessful candidates, few of them in total 9 writ petitions under Article 226 came to be filed in October 2003, challenging the process of selection, on diverse grounds. The learned Single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions by impugned judgment dated 4.11.2004 mainly on the ground that no interference is warranted with the selections made on the basis of practice in vogue for long time, more particularly at the instance of the candidates, who have taken a chance and participated in the selection process. Learned Single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Kanta Prasad Sharma Vs. Govt. of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2713; RLW2005(3)Raj1662; 2005(2)WLC9
S.K. Sharma, J.1. The applicant, an Advocate by profession, in the instant application seeks to set aside the declaration made about a pamphlet referred at item 15 in the notification issued by State of Rajasthan under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'CrPC') published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated April 22, 1993.2. Section 95 of CrPC enables the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, after stating grounds for its opinion, if any newspaper, book or document contains:-'(i) any seditious matter punishable under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), or(ii) any matter promoting enmity between different classes or at places of worship, punishable under Section 153B IPC, or(iii) any matter containing obscene books or obscene objects, punishable under Section 292 or 293 IPC, or(iv) any matter which amounts to maliciously insulting the religion or religious beliefs of any class punishable under Section 295A IPC, to declare every copy thereof...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. Brij Kishore
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj200; 2005WLC(Raj)UC541
Dalip Singh, J.1. In this appeal by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1984 the suit of plaintiff- respondent for declaration that his order of termination dated 9.10.1979 Exhibit-2 may be declared to be void was decreed by the learned Trial Court and an amount of Rs. 17,455/- towards back wages for the period 9.10.1979 to 31.7.1982 was also decreed. The said judgment and decree was challenged in this appeal by the R.S.R.T.C.2. When the matter came up before this Court on 13.8.1985, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that stay application has become infructuous as the decretal amount which 'was deposited by the appellants has been withdrawn by him. A prayer was made by the appellants at that stage remaining part of the decree may be stayed which was declined by this Court with liberty to the appellants that in case, they so desire, they may move an application for maintenance of status quo. With the aforesaid observation, the stay applicat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »