Rajasthan Court March 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.
Yashwant Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1080; 2005(2)WLC559
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Both the public interest litigation involve similar issue, therefore, are being decided by this common order.2. The main challenge in the aforesaid writ petition is with regard to land use and to maintain ecology zone as per Master Development Plan-2011 and asking for direction in the nature of mandamus to restrain the respondents from allowing indiscriminate urbanisation and exploitation of the ecological zone. The aforesaid relief has been sought in respect of the area namely Jhalana Hills and area abutting thereto shown as green belt ecological zone in the Jaipur Master Development Plan-2011.3. As per Master Development Plan-2011, the land utilization has been categorised as (1) Rural area (2) Ecological Zone and (3) Urbanisable Area. Since in the writ petitions, the main issue has been raised to maintain ecological zone. For the purposes of ecological zone, it has been mentioned in the Master Plan itself that functions and activities which are eco-friendly and oc...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1277; 2005(4)WLC90
R.P. Vyas J.1. The instant petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.12.2002 (Annexure 4) passed by the, Labour Court, Jodhpur.2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are as follows:3. The Central Government has made a reference to the Labour Court on 23.12.1990 to the effect that 'whether the action of the management of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phones-11, Jodhpur in terminating the services of Shri Pukhraj Sen i.e., from 31.12.1984 is legal and justified? And if not, to what relief the workman is entitled.4. After receiving the reference, the Labour Court has issued the notices to the parties and the respondent No. 2 has submitted the statement of claim (Annex.1) before the Labour Court. The petitioners have submitted a reply to the statement of claim vide Annexure 2.5. The Labour Court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 03.12.2002 held that the termination of the respondent No. 2 was illegal and ordered to grant 50% back wages from 23.12.1999...
Ami Lal Vs. Mahavir Prasad Surendra Mohan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC236; RLW2005(2)Raj1378
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.1.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1 Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the appellant Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2004 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 794/2002 was dismissed and conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court was affirmed. During pendency of the revision petition, the complainant respondent Shakti Kumar appeared before this Court and filed a compromise compounding offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). The compromise has been verified by the Deputy Registrar, Judicial today. The complainant is present is the Court and admits composition of offence and seeks permission for c...
Ashu Gupta Vs. the Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2416
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal Ajmer against the petitioner who was the tenant in the suit premises. This judgment and decree had been passed by the Tribunal under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 which prescribes a summary procedure for cases of eviction as a matter of speedy remedy but the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable as far as practicable.2. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that an appeal is not maintainable against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal under the Rent Control Act of 2001 although the same is final in nature. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed for challenging the same. But the counsel is missing that where appeal is barred under the Code of Civil Procedure, revision is an appropriate remedy provided it false within the ambit and scope of revisional jurisdiction. The Rent Control Act ...
Madan Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1246; 2005(3)WLC5
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 30.11.1995 (Annex. 3), 03.5.1996 (Annex. 4) and 23.10.1997 (Annex. 5) may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are as follows:3. The petitioner while working as L.D.C. under the respondent No. 3, was served with a memorandum alongwith charge sheet dated 6.10.1995 (Annexure 1) under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)4. The petitioner filed the reply dated 10.11.1995 (annexure 2) to the above mentioned charge sheet within the time prescribed by the respondent No. 3, denying the charge levelled against him, on the ground that Laxman Singh, UDC (Force-Clerk) was on leave w.e.f. 16.5.1995 to 22.8.95 and there was no order in writing to took after his work, in his absence. It was further replied that no handing o...
State Vs. Virendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: I(2005)DMC765
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. These two Division Bench appeals have arisen out of a common judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No. 44/99, as such the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. D.B Criminal Appeal No. 450/2001 has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2001 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, whereby accused respondent Virendra Kumar has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302, IPC and the rest of the accused persons viz., Moolchand, Smt. Sunita and Smt. Shanu @ Alka have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 304B and 498A, IPC.3. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 106/2001 has been filed by accused Virendra Kumar challenging his conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 304B, IPC 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,0...
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1242; 2005(3)WLC68
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the notification dtd. 8.6.2001 (annex. 4) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may further be directed not to effect any recovery pursuant to the order dtd. 14.11.2003 (Annex. 1).2. Brief facts of the case are that with a view to remove the financial stagnation of the employees working with the State Government and to grant them financial relief the State Government was pleased enough to provide selection grade on completion of 9,18, and 27 years of service vide notification dtd. 25.1.1992 (Annexr 2).3. According to the notification dtd. 25.1.1992, if an employee completes 18 years of service and if he has already been accorded one promotion, then he is entitled to get second selection grade only after completion of 18 years of service. The first selection grade is not available to such an employee, who has already been granted one promotion.4. In the year 1996, as per the reco...
Shri Ram Rayons Vs. Judge It and Lc
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1038]; (2006)ILLJ1149Raj; RLW2005(4)Raj3031; 2006(1)WLC70
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9th October, 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 1229/82 by which the termination of the respondent-workman from the services of the appellant-Industry Shri Ram Rayons Ltd. -now known as DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. was set aside and his reinstatement in service was ordered with 50% back wages only which was to be computed on the basis of the last salary drawn by him. Thus, the learned Single Judge had interfered with the award of the Labour Court which although held the dismissal of the workman as legal and justified, was pleased to award 10 months wages by way of compensation considering his long years of service.2. It appears that the respondent-workman was in the service of the appellant-Organisation as a Fitter after regular selection and while he was in service he remained absent from duty for 7 days on different dates without leave applications which was between August 1975...
Sawa Ram Vs. the Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR956]; RLW2005(2)Raj1157
R.P. Vyas, J 1. Heard at admission stage.2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the judgment dtd. 18.5.2004 (Annex.P/1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be reinstated in services with all consequential benefits.3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer.4. However, the said conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide notification dtd. 30.8.2001 referred the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur.5. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The petitioner submitted statement of claim alleging inter alia that he was appointed as driver by the respondent No. 1 on 3.1.1997 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1500/-. After completion of one year's regular service,...
Heera Lal Vs. Mandir Shri Thakurji Sangria and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1114; 2005(2)WLC799
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The defendant-tenant has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.9.1987 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh camp Sangria in Civil Appeal No. 16/1983 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and maintained the decree for eviction dated 19.5.1983 passed by the Munsif, Sangria in Civil Suit No. 23/1980.2. This appeal was admitted on 1.12.1987 while formulating the following as substantial questions of law involved in this appeal:-(1) Whether the learned Trial Court has committed error in striking out the entire defence of the defendant appellant for not depositing the rent of the subsequent month of March, 1981?(2) Whether the findings of the learned lower courts on the reasonable and bonafide necessity are perverse?(3) Whether the findings of the learned lower court are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 14(2), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950?(4) Whether...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »