Rajasthan Court July 2005 Judgments
Deva Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: I(2007)ACC617; AIR2006Raj180; 2006(1)WLC406
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of inter-regional permit under Section 70(1) read with Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') on 11-9-2002 for the route between Loonkaransar and Karansar. At that time, no route was opened by the State Government from Loonkaransar to Karansar for which the petitioner sought permit by his application dated 10-10-2002. However, the District Transport Officer, Bikaner proposed for opening of the same route Loonkaransar to Karansar vide his proposal dated 19-2-2002, therefore, the application of the petitioner for the route was after the proposal sent by the District Transport Officer for opening the said route. The State Government opened the route vide notification dated 28-9-2002. The petitioner's application though filed before opening of the route was considered by the Regional Transport Authority (R...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Lal Dangi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR396]
Govind Mathur, J.1. By order impugned dated 28.12.1994 the Collector, Udaipur rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants died while in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975').The facts in brief giving rise to present writ petition are as follows:2. The petitioner is adopted son of Shri Prem Shankar who died on 15.7.1993 while in service of respondents. At the time of death Shri Prem Shankar was working as Class-IV employee in the office of Tehsildar, Girwa District Udaipur. The petitioner after obtaining a succession certificate on 18.2.1994 from the Court of District Judge, Udaipur submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1975 on 23.2.1994. Under the directions of Collector, Udaipur the Tehsildar Girwa conducted an inquiry and verified the fact that the petitioner is adopted son of Late Shri Prem Shankar. The Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwara Ram Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2640; 2005(4)WLC219
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the suspension order dated 3.10.2000 Annex. 6 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8:4.2000, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner at the Police-Station, Nagaur for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The petitioner remained in custody for more than 48 hours, in connection with the aforesaid FIR.3. On 16.8.2000, the petitioner was placed under suspension for the reason that a departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner. Later on, vide order 25.9.2000 the suspension of the petitioner was revoked. The departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the enquiry of the charges levelled against him. However, the matter was remanded back the Collector, Nagaur.4. The petitioner was again placed under suspension vide order dated 3.10.2000, on the ground that the petitioner had remained in custody for more th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2856
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The matter has been heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for parties.2. The petitioners in the instant writ petition have assailed the award dated October 16, 1997 passed by Labour Court Bharatpur whereby the reference made to it was answered in favour of respondent workmen and it was held that the termination order dated February 28, 1990 of respondents workmen was illegal and the workmen shall be reinstated in the services with continuity of service and 50% back wages.3. Mr. H.V. Nandwana, Dy. Govt. Advocate contended that the respondent workmen failed to discharge the burden that they had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year but the Labour Court answered the award without properly considering the law of burden of proof. Reliance is placed on Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, : (2004)IIILLJ832SC and Municipal Corporation Faridabad v. Siri Niwas : (2004)IIILLJ760SC 4. Having considered the submissions ...
Tag this Judgment!Navjeevan Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj327; 2005(4)WLC687
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. Since both the writ petitions involve common issues and law point, hence, they are being decided by this common order.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner preferred revision petitions Nos. 456/2004 and 458/2004 before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 17-9-2004 passed under Section 47-B of the Indian Stamp Act by the Addl. Collector, Jaipur whereby the Addl. Collector, Jaipur exercising the power of Collector (Stamp) had levied stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 73,93,520/- on each of the instruments presented by the petitioner-company for registration against sale deed presented for registration.3. The controversy arised when on the presentation of revision petitions, the Board of Revenue raised the objection that the revision petitions cannot be entertained without deposition of payment of 50% of the recoverable amount in advance in view of provisions of Section 65 of the Act and vide order dated 29-3-2005 rejected the revision petitions, h...
Tag this Judgment!Budhi Prakash Swarnkar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj118
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Since all these appeals involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. The facts of DB civil special appeal No. 800/2004 are being taken as a leading case.2. The petitioner-appellant (hereinafter to be referred as the appellant) acquired the qualification of B.P.Ed. During the year 1997-98 from Vasantrav Sharirik Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Nagpur affiliated to Nagpur University, Nagpur. Nagpur University has been recognised by the University Grant Commission, Delhi.3. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.8.1998, the appellant applied for Male Physical Teacher Gr. III. The controversy arise when the appellant's candidature was not considered by the respondents on the ground that certificate produced by the appellant has not been issued by the recognised institution.4. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.11.2003 on the basis of reply filed on behalf of...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj790; 2006(2)WLC70
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioner had filed this writ of habeas corpus for production of his brother who was alleged to be under illegal detention of respondent Nos. 5 to 14. A show cause notice was issued on this writ petition and an order was also passed on 11.7.2005 granting one more opportunity to the Addl. govt. Advocate to trace out the missing person and in the event of failure to do so, status report with regard to the case was ordered to be filed which had been registered by the petitioner as FIR No. 132/2004 at police station Masalpur District Karauli. The habeas corpus petition thereafter has been listed before this Court for appropriate orders and Mr. Sandu, the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, has furnished the status report in regard to the investigation of the alleged detention of Babulal, brother of the petitioner. It has been pointed out that all the persons named in the FIR had been interrogated. Respondent No. 6 Ashok, respondent No. 7 Ramdas, respondent No. 10 Mukesh...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Kaur (Smt.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR731]; RLW2006(1)Raj173; 2005WLC(Raj)UC678
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, who is the mother of late Col. Abinder Singh, claims ordinary family pension, in the instant writ petition.2. The undisputed facts are that late Col. Abinder Singh was commissioned in the Army (Engineers) on December 21, 1968 (PRC) and died on July 19, 1999. He was survived by his wife Ranjeet Kaur and two sons viz. Harjinder Singh and Tejinder Singh. On September 26, 1999 Ranjeet Kaur also passed away before receiving the first pension payment authorised to her vide P.P.O. No. 269/1999, The dependent family pension was subsequently sanctioned to the elder son Harjinder Singh w.e.f. September 27, 1999 vide PPO No. M/F/323/99 dated December 28, 1999. On commissioning of Harjinder Singh in the Army, the dependent family pension was further granted to the younger son Tejinder Singh vide PPO No. M/F/H2/2002 dated May 28, 2002, On commissioning of Tejinder Singh in the Army in the month of June, 2004, the dependent family pension granted to him seized...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Devi Vs. Mool Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: III(2006)ACC233; 2006WLC(Raj)UC223; 2006(3)ACC233; 2006(4)ALJ514(EE)
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that an accident occurred on 1st December, 1992 and in that accident one Sugan Chand died. Sugan Chand's wife and his son submitted a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara. The registered owner of the vehicle as well as transferee of the vehicle were impleaded as party non-claimants in the claim petition. The Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from any 1iabi1ity as the vehicle was not insured. The driver of the vehicle was also impleaded as party. The Tribunal held that it was the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle in the accident and, therefore, the driver is liable to pay the compensation and, consequently, the registered owner as well as the transferee of the vehicle both are also liable vicariously, jointly and severally. However, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% per annum in the award dated 20th November, 2000. Hence, the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Khatri (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Chattar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ2739; RLW2005(4)Raj2476
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Mr. Anil Bachhawat who generally appears for respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is directed to take notice, though the Insurance Co. was earlier served.2. Heard learned Counsel on merits.This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 16.3.1991 deciding the Claim Case No. 57/1988 for enhancement of compensation.3. The claimant-Smt. Kamlesh Khatri is widow of Shri Suresh Kumar who is paid to have died in accident which took place on 17.12.1987 at about 11.15 in broad day light and the truck No. RJC 1060 which was being driven by the respondent No. 1 -Chhatar Singh driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased- Suresh Kumar from back who died on the spot. At the time of accident, Shri Suresh Kumar was working as Corporal in Indian Air Force and was 25 years of age having monthly salary of Rs. 2,264/-. He left behind his son Jayant and widow Smt. Kamlesh and old parents Shri Hari Ram and Badami...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »