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.
Shanker Lal Soni Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1644
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners claiming travelling concession while performing journey through Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation (for short 'the RSRTC'), Railway and Airways being the senior citizens.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the RSRTC, Railway and Airways is providing conditional concession to the senior citizens.Concession in Airways:-3. Airways provides concession to senior citizen if he applies for the ticket 7 days in advance and for return journey, the senior citizen have to stay minimum for two days at the destination then only they are eligible to get the concession for return journey.4. On behalf of the Jet Airways, it is stated that the senior citizen can get the concession under the certain terms and conditions. As per the scheme, concession is permissible and applicable only on round trip and circle trip journies and this benefit can only be allowed to a senior citizen residing permanently in Indi...
Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1949; 2005(3)WLC743
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the initiation notification dated 19.7.2004.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of Refrigerators. This factory is located at Vigyan Nagar, Opposite RIICO Office, Shahjahanpur, District Alwar, Rajasthan. For the manufacture of its Refrigerators the petitioner imports various types of compressors mainly from Malaysia and China at internationally competitive price.3. M/s. BPL Engineering Limited filed a complaint before the designated authority in the month of February, 2004 alleging dumping of certain compressors (Low Temperature Application compressors of a kind used in refrigerating equipment, used in domestic application refrigerators) imported from China and Malaysia.4. The complaint filed by the M/s. BPL Engineering Ltd. is with regard to the year 2003-04.5. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 5.3.2004 to some of the manufacturers of compressors...
Nand Kanwar Vs. Rajendra Singh Bhati
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC281; RLW2006(1)Raj201
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Rajendra Singh Bhati, the appellant in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1606/2002 and respondent in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 167/2003 and 1112/1997 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the husband'), filed a Matrimonial Case No. 92/2000 in the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur against Smt. Nand Kanwar, the respondent in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1606/2002 and the appellant in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 167/ 2003 and 1112/1997 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the wife'), In the matrimonial case the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1995'), on 6.10.2001; the learned Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, ordered against the husband to pay to the wife the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month. The learned Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, dismissed the Matrimonial Case No. 92/2000, vide its judgment and decree, dated 13.8.2002. The husband challenged that judgment and decree...
Dr. A. Jairam Vs. Dr. A. Suman
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC345
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act, 1984') is directed by the appellant husband against the order, dated 15.5.1999, of the learned Family Court, Ajmer, in Case No. 125/98. Under the impugned order the learned Family Court, Ajmer directed the appellant husband to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as interim maintenance for minor children, namely, Gagan and Sameer, for their maintenance, education, etc. This amount of interim maintenance has been ordered to be paid by the appellant husband of his share as the respondent wife, it is not in dispute, is also in employment.2. Two-fold contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant husband challenging the impugned order of the learned Family Court, Ajmer. First contention is that the learned Family Court, Ajmer has committed a serious error of jurisdiction to order against the appellant husband to pay the maintenance for his minor children named above, under Sectio...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Dev NaraIn Pandey
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2142; 2005(3)WLC297
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed by the appellant, the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, against the judgment, dated 21.10.1994, of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1702/1984.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was working as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan; he was served with the memorandum, dated 30.6.1974, under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules, 1958'). Enclosed to the said memorandum, the respondent was sent the statements of charges and the allegations.3. The Additional Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Rajasthan, Jaipur, conducted the departmental enquiry against the respondent on the charge sheet served upon him vide memorandum aforesaid. The enquiry officer submit...
Chhoti Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2212; 2005(2)WLC152
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Husband of the petitioner died while in service working as Beldar. Though CPF amount has been paid to the petitioner, however, family pension has not been paid so far. Initially it has been submitted that the husband of the petitioner did not submit any option for pension. However, it reveals that though the option form has duly been submitted by the husband of the petitioner during his life time, however, as per contention raised by the respondents, the same had not been accepted by the concerning authorities prior to his death. It was only on this ground the family pension has been denied to the petitioner.2. The death is always uncertain and unforeseen. Since the husband of the petitioner has already filled in the option form prior to his death on 10.11.1982, it is irrelevant whether the same had been accepted by the concerning authorities in time or not. Be that as it may, since the controversy under similar circumstances has already been decided by this Court i...
Anil Kumar Surolia Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2169; 2005(3)WLC14
V.K. Bali, J.1. Anil Kumar Surolia, a judicial officer presently posted as Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Jhunjhunu through present writ filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks reimbursement with regard to the treatment that he had to go through in emergent circumstances.2. The cause of the petitioner has been opposed on the preliminary objections that the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and that no statutory or fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed and therefore, writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not competent.3. On merits, the petitioner was denied the relief on the ground that it was not a case of undergoing emergent treatment and that the hospital from where the petitioner got treatment was not in the list of hospitals approved by the Government.4. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention reveal that the petitioner was referred on 13.7.2000 to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur when...
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2361; 2005(4)WLC108
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) the petitioner-complainant has challenged the order dated 8.4.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 2, Bikaner (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 39/2003 whereby the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner through Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of the Code. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner complainant lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Gajner District Bikaner on 1.9.2002 inter alia alleging therein that he along with his uncle Durgaram the deceased, Bakhtaram, cousin Laxmanram and Pritamsingh was working in the agriculture field. They went to the field in the jeep of deceased Durg...
Flex Industries Ltd. Vs. Clarity Salt (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: [2006]131CompCas63(Raj); [2006]65SCL141(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This is a petition on behalf of the creditor for winding up filed under Sections 433(e) & (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, of the respondent-company.2. It is submitted that as per the orders of the respondent-company the petitioner-company had been supplying the material from time to time and along with the same, had been forwarding proper challans and bill giving details of the material and value thereof.3. In para No. 9 of the petition it is stated that the respondent-company used the said material supplied by the petitioner-company but it failed to pay the value of the bills.4. I find from the petition that the respondent-company issued certain cheques for Rs. 4,25,000; the petitioner-company presented the same but all were dishonoured. Undisputedly the petitioner-company has filed criminal complaints against the respondent-company for dishonouring of the cheques and the same are pending in the...
Chokha Alias Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4708; 2005WLC(Raj)UC551
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., accused-petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27-7-2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (for short, the 'trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 28/2002, by which the trial Court issued standing warrant against the petitioner.2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for the decision of this miscellaneous petition, are that on 21 -4-2002, prosecutrix Smt. Dammi lodged an FIR with Police Station, Ramsar (district Barmer) alleging therein that on 18-4-2002 when she was at her Dhani, the accused-petitioner came and committed rape on her. On this information, the investigation ensued. During investigation, the petitioner could not be apprehended by police and, therefore, on completion of investigation, challan was filed against the petitioner under Section 299, Cr. P.C. for the offences under Sections 450, 354, 376, IPC and the trial Court took cogniza...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »