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.
Geharilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: I(2005)DMC709
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept notice for final disposal. He accepts the notice.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the instant revision petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage.3. By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. the petitioner-complainant has challenged the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) arising out of FIR No. 179/2002 P.S. Nathdwara, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking recalling of the order dated 3.1.2004 whereby the Trial Court accepted the negative final report submitted by the police without proper service of notice to the petitioner complainant.4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned dated 29.11.2004 as also order dated 3.1.2004 by which the Trial Court accepted the negative final report submit...
R.F.C. Sikar Vs. Basanti Devi and ors. (Smt.)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR200]; RLW2005(3)Raj1632; 2005(3)WLC717
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The appeal is barred by one days, the non-claimant appellants have filed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay aforesaid.2. Heard learned counsel for the non-claimant appellants and perused the material available on the record of the appeal.3. This appeal is directed against the award dated 28.2.2004 of the learned Commissioner under the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923, Sikar, in case No. WCA/F/11/2002.4. Under the impugned award the learned Commissioner awarded Rs. 1,32,941/- as compensation and further a sum of Rs. 26,434/- as penalty in favour of the claimant respondents.5. The learned counsel for the non-claimant appellants contended that the deceased was not in the employment of the non- claimant appellants and thus no award could have been passed for the death of Kesharam in favour of the claim at respondents.6. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel for ...
Anar Devi Vs. Chandra Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj270; RLW2005(3)Raj1634; 2005(3)WLC731
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The registry has pointed out the defect 'court fee deficit Rs. 5305/-.' The appellant No. 1 is a woman and appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are her minor daughters and sons. The matter pertains to grant of succession certificate of the estate left by deceased Shyam Singh.2. Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act, 1987') lays down a criteria of giving free and competent legal services and provides that every person, who has to file a defend a case, shall be entitled to legal services under his Act if that person is, inter alia, a woman or a child.3. The word 'legal service' is defined in Section 2(C) of the Act, 1987, which means-it includes the rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or other legal proceedings before any court or other authority or tribunal and the giving of advice on any legal matter.4. The Act, 1987 is enacted to constitute the legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weake...
Ajay Pram Vs. Smt. Abha Pram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2022
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on the record.2. This appeal under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act, 1869') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order, dated 24.8.2004 of the learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur. Under the impugned order the learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent wife and directed to husband to pay to her Rs. 1000/- per month maintenance allowance; Rs. 1000/- for litigation expenses and Rs. 300/- for expenses towards her appearance in the court for each date to and fro Ajmer-Jaipur with one assistant.3. During the pendency of the appeal the parties have settled their dispute and agreed to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent; accordingly they filed a joint application under Section 10A of the Act, 1869. The compromise entered into between the parti...
Banwari Lal Vs. Gopi Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC464
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the claimant appellant and perused the entire record of the appeal.2. The appeal is directed against the award, dated 25.10.2004, of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Tract No. 3), Jaipur District, Jaipur, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in M.A.C. No. 322/2004 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 87,130/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant appellant in the motor vehicle accident.3. The only grievance made by the learned Counsel for the claimant appellant against the award impugned in this appeal is that though the learned Tribunal has held that the Insurance Company is statutorily liable to pay the compensation to the claimant appellant U., third party, but, at the same time, committed an error in imposing a condition on payment thereof that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant appellant only when the respondent No. 1, the owner of the truck,...
Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1059
Shashi Kant Sharma, J.1. Both these appeals i.e. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 737/1999 (Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan) and D.B. Criminal Appeal No 15/2001 (State of Rajasthan v. Sohan and Another) have arisen out of a common judgment dated 29.9.1999 delivered by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer in sessions case No. 28/1998 (State v. Rameshwar and Ors.) whereby he convicted the accused Rameshwar for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine he has to further undergo 6 months RI and acquitted accused Sohan and Jeevan for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.2. The brief facts essential for the disposal of these appeals are that as per the case of the prosecution, on 29.9.98 at about 10 AM Smt. Papudi was cleaning utensils in front of her house in Kishangarh. Her bother Rameshwar came there and pressed her neck and threw her on the stones. Thereafter, Rameshwar went to his house and broug...
Gaffar and anr. Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1940; 2005(2)WLC590
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The two appellants along with twenty others, were the accused on the file of learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) and Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli in Sessions Case No. 63/1994. Learned Judge vide judgment dated July 31, 1997 while acquitting 20 co-accused, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-Ibrahim @ Panna :Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Gaffar :Under Section 302/34 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that the informant Rajaulla submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) at Police Station Karauli on June 2, 1994 against twenty two accused persons wherein the allegation against the appellant Panna was that he opened fire with single barrel topidar gun on the abdomen of Nanne Khan (now deceased). A...
i.R. Trivedi Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2590; 2005(4)WLC119
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed under the department of Technical Education in its ITI Wing as Administrator in June, 1971 through study gained in the service. The petitioner was ultimately appointed by promotion to the highest post under the department of Technical Education as Director, Technical Education on 1st Dec, 2000 after regular selection on recommendation of D.P.C. against vacant post of Director for year 2000-01. There is only one post of Director under the Department of Technical Education and the recruitment and promotion to the various posts under technical education service is governed by the Rajasthan Technical Education Rules, 1973.3. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner was regularly selected and promoted to highest post under the Rules of 1973 duly and validly. The dispute is about pay scale to which the petitioner is entitled to as holder of the pos...
Babu Lal Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: [2008]84SCL73(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on admission of the application.2. Admit. Shri B.K. Sharma waives the service of notice on behalf of the respondent.3. Looking to the nature of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the application is taken up for final hearing.4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire application.5. The claims were invited by the Official Liquidator from the creditors of M/s. Saraf Synthetics (Rajasthan) Limited (in liquidation), but the applicant could not submit his claim in time.The claim pertains to his service benefits dues and the same was not entertained as not filed in time, thus, this application under rule 177 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.6. The last date for submission of the claim was 31-1-2005; the applicant submitted the claim on 24-2-2005, i.e., after 24 days. The applicant has satisfactorily explained this delay of 24 days and thus the same deserves to be condoned...
Block Development Officer and anr. Vs. Chhagan Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR959]
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition is directed against the award dated 21.12.2000 (Annexure 5), pissed, by the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner in Industrial Disputes Case No. 52/1999.2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that respondent No. 1 was appointed on daily wage basis on 27.8.1985 and he worked upto 16.5.1989 without any break. It is submitted that his services were satisfactory and he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, his case falls under the definition of workman and his services cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947).3. It is further submitted that his services were terminated by a verbal order dated 16.5.1989 and he was not served upon any notice prior to the termination of his services. He was also not given any compensation in lieu thereof. No seniority list was prepared and affixed on the Notice Board.4. It is also s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »