Rajasthan Court May 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.
Bajrang Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1806; 2005(3)WLC521
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant writ petition has been field by the petitioners, praying therein that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to finalize the provisional seniority list published on 22.10.2003 (Annexure 4) and, after finalizing the seniority list, the respondents may further be directed to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) for promotions to the post of Assistant Engineers (AENs), on the basis of seniority amongst the Junior Engineers, working with the Urban Improvement Trusts (UITs). It has also been prayed that the respondents may be restrained from filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers lying vacant in various Urban Improvement Trusts by deputation from other Departments.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioners have obtained their degrees of Civil Engineering as well as Diploma in Civil Engineering from the recognized Universities and hence, they were eligible for appointment on the ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Cr. Law Reporters and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2139; 2005(3)WLC235
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. For the purpose of laying down a uniform policy for publishing the judgments, notices were issued to the State of Rajasthan and various Law Journals.2. Rule 119 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules 1952 (for short '1952 Rules') which prescribes the procedure for publication of the judgments in law journals, reads as under:-i) an approved list of journals has to be maintained under the orders of Chief Justice;ii) Only such approved law journals are entitled to receive the copies of the judgment approved for reporting;iii) No law journal shall be entered in the list unless it has given an undertaking that it will apply for a copy of every judgment delivered by the Court which is marked 'approved for reporting';iv) As soon as a judgment is approved for reporting by the Court a Bench Reader has to enter in a separate register and the Bench Reader is required to send such judgment immediately to the Superintendent of the Judicial Department;v) An approved judgment is se...
Hotel Residency Place Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2158
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Both the petitioners in these writ petitions are engaged in hotel business and obtained licence for retail sale of foreign liquor as required under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950') and the Rules framed thereunder, namely. The Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (for short 'the Rules of 1956') read with Rajasthan Excise (Grant of Hotel Bar/Club Bar Licences) Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules of 1973'). The term of the licence was to expire on 31.3.2005. According to the petitioner, as per the condition of licence, the petitioner was eligible to obtain renewal of the licence on payment of renewal fee as per Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1973 amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs with fee as per Rule 69(1) of the Rules of 1956 which is Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner, for that purpose, also received a letter from the District Excise Officer wherein it was mentioned that initial fee of Rs. 1.50 lacs as well as minimum rent fee of Rs. 25,000/- is req...
Ranjit and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj29; 2005(4)WLC754
Shiv Kumar Sharma J.1. In this appeal, preferred by eleven appellants judgmen dated March 20, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kekri (Ajmer) is unde challenge whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:Ranjit:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 147 & 148 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment.Under Section 447 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 50/-in default to further suffer seven days simple imprisonment.Under Section 325/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.Under Section 324/149 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment.Under Sec...
Goyal Traders Vs. Shakambhari Ceramics Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2005
Reported in: [2006]131CompCas184(Raj); [2006]65SCL235(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record of the petition.2. This is a petition under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956; therein the petitioner has prayed for winding up of respondent M/s. Shakambhari Ceramics Limited, having its registered office at F-7/11, Vigyan Nagar, Industrial Area, Shahjanpur, District Alwar, (for short, 'the respondent company'). Further the petitioner has prayed for appointment of the Official Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator of the respondent-company.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered proprietary firm having its registered office at 2nd Floor, Budhraj Chambers, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat). The respondent-company is incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at the aforesaid given address.4. The respondent-company, as per the averments made by the petitioner, is en...
Jaipur PolyspIn Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2005
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas694(Raj); [2006]67SCL338(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The applicant Jaipur Polyspin Limited filed this application under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short, 'the Rules, 1959'), praying therein for dispensing with filing of a separate company application with the Jaipur Bench and instead to allow filing of a joint company application at the principal seat of the court.2. The joint application is to be filed for amalgamation of Jaipur Polyspin Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the transferor company') with the Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the transferee company'). The registered office of the transferor company is situated at D-60, Sawai Madho Singh Circle, Bani Park, Jaipur, whereas the registered office of the transferee company is situated at 'Kharigram, P.O. Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.3. The applicant submitted that as the registered office of the transferor and transferee companies are situated in Jaipur and Bhil...
Vishnu Gopal Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC31; RLW2005(2)Raj1497; 2005(3)WLC603
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The complainant petitioner, namely, Vishnu Gopal lodged a written report on 4.3.1991 at Police Station, Sodata, Jaipur about the death of his daughter Smt. Renu and her child aged 2 years. Having registered a case vide FIR No. 117/91 for offence under Sections 304B and 498-A IPC, the police investigated in the matter and on completion thereof, submitted a charge sheet against accused respondent Rama Kant Pareek, thereby alleging offence under Section 498-A IPC.3. It appears that on 8.11.1996 the complainant petitioner filed an application under Sections 216 arid 190 Cr.P.C, before the Trial Court with the prayer that cognizance of the offence under Sections 304B and 306 IPC be taken and the case be committed to the Court of Sessions. It was further prayed that cognizance of offence against other persons named in the FIR and against whom the police did not submit charge sheet, may also be taken. On considering the material and after hea...
Bagga @ Kachru Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3766; RLW2005(3)Raj1825; 2005(3)WLC448
V.K. Bali, J.1. Bhagga @ Kachru the sole appellant herein was tried for intentionally causing deaths of Daulat Ram and Heeralal. The trial resulted in an order of conviction and sentence dated 23.7.2001 recorded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 2, Jhalawar.2. Challenge in the present appeal is thus to the order dated 23.7.2001 vide which the appellant has been held guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment.3. The occurrence leading to deaths of Daulat Ram and Heeralal, as per prosecution version, took place on 15.6.1992 at 10:00 PM. The FIR with regard to the incident was lodged by Daulat Ram himself on 17.5.1992 at 7:30 AM. It was stated by Daulat Ram in the FIR lodged by him that last night around 10:00 PM, when he and his brother Heeralal were returning from the Bazaar, Bagga was abusing his brother ...
Dashrat Chand Singhvi Vs. Bar Council of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj310; 2005(4)WLC115
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner submitted an application for his enrollment as an advocate before the Bar Council of Rajasthan in the year 1986 precisely on 25-1-1986. According to petitioner, the petitioner's application has not been decided by the Bar Council of Rajasthan till the year 2003, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition and is seeking direction against the respondent Bar Council of Rajasthan to enroll the petitioner as an advocate and action of the Bar Council of Rajasthan for delaying timely consideration of petitioner's case be deprecated and further corfipensation be awarded to the petitioner.3. According to petitioner he submitted application for enrollment in the year 1986 and petitioner was waiting for any communication from Bar Council of Rajasthan, but his application was neither rejected nor he was enrolled as an Advocate, then petitioner contacted Secretary, Bar Council o...
Pashu Krurata Nivaran Samiti Vs. Jaipur Municipal Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1659
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The main grievance of the petitioner society is that the respondents are not following provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2000 (for short, the Rules, 2000) as the provisions of Slaughter House Rules 2000 are mandatory in nature.2. After referring the mandatory provisions of the Rules 2000, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the area of Municipality of Jaipur or in the Panchayat area of Chainpura there is no slaughter house conforming to the requirement of the Rules 2000. And no person is having a valid licence for slaughtering. Slaughter house cannot be owned by the Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short, Act of 1959) and also no slaughter house can be built on the land owned by a Municipal Corporation. Therefore, in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy which are contained in Articles 47 and 48 of the Constitution of India the state is require...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »