Rajasthan Court July 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.
Goverdhan Swami Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2632; 2005(4)WLC670
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The order that was passed on July 20, 2005 reads as under:-'The writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Reasons shall follow.'Here are the reasons:-2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for direction to quash and set aside the suspension order dated May 16, 2005 with further direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Additional District Elementary Education Officer Jaipur.3. As per facts averred in the writ petition the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. III in the Primary Education set up and he is continuously working under the Director Primary Education. He was promoted on the post of Teacher Gr.II in the year 1991. While the petitioner working as Head Master Government Upper Primary School, Hawamahal Jaipur he was promoted on the post of Lecturer in his own pay scale in Secondary Education set up. The same was denied by petitioner because...
Bajrangi Bai and anr. Vs. Prabhu Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2635; 2005(4)WLC534
N.K. Jain, J.1. This misc. appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 17.12.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 111/1991 whereby while rejecting an application for compensation filed by the claimant appellants, awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of no fault liability in favour of claimant appellants and against the non claimant-respondent No. 2 Ram Kishan.2. The claimant appellants filed a claim petition under Section, 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein it was stated that Prabhu Lal, non-claimant-respondent No. 1 was driver of the Truck No. RJR-7875. The deceased Dhana Lal was in employment on the non claimant respondent No. 2, owner of the said truck. It was also stated that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of vehicle an accident took place, wherein Dhana Lal, died, who was travelling in the Truck. It was also pleaded that Dhana Lal was 25 years of age and w...
Brahmchari Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs. Rajasthan Non Government Educationa ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj65; 2005(4)WLC401
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated January 9, 2001 of Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur whereby the petitioner has been directed to make payment to respondent of the benefits of revised pay scale and selection scale of 9, 18 and 27 years of service and the amount of gratuity along with the interest 12%.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently canvassed that the application of the respondent under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short '1989 Act') was not maintainable because the 1989 Act came into force w.e.f. April 1, 1993 and the respondent had already retired on November 30, 1992. Reliance is placed on the Management of Goodyear India Ltd. v. Shri K.G. Devessar : AIR1985SC1759 .3. I have pondered over the submissions. In my considered opinion even if the respondent employee had retired on November 30, 1992 the application under Section 21 of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Pushpa Bhati
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Raj)649
1. These appeals and cross-objection before the Tribunal arise out of assessment of the respondent-assessee for asst. yrs. 1994-95 and 1995-96. In both these cases, the principal dispute which was before the Tribunal was whether the assessee should be assessed in respect of income in question on substantive basis or as protective measure. The Revenue's contention in respect of the income was that it is a substantive income of other members of the family; the income in question was unearthed as a result of search and seizure conducted at the premises of the assessee and members of the family.2. The Tribunal in the case of Shri Om Prakash Bhati, husband of the appellant, has held that income was to be assessed in the hands of Smt. Puspha Bhati on substantive basis and not in the hands of Shri Om Prakash Bhati. The order of the Tribunal in the matter of Om Prakash Bhati dt. 13th May, 2003, is subject-matter of pending appeal before this Court raising the question about person in whose han...
Suresh Kumar @ Sushil Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ116; I(2006)DMC130; RLW2005(4)Raj2618
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The appeal No. 1691/2003 has been filed by accused-appellant Suresh Kumar @ Sushil Yadav against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby while acquitting the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 304B IPC, convicted him under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month and R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for two months respectively. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the same judgment by which accused Suresh has been acquitted from the charge under Section 304B IPC, complainant Ram Lal Yadav has filed a Criminal Revision Petition No. 1389/2003. Both the appeal and the revision petition have been heard together and are being disposed of by this c...
Laxman Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2576; 2005(4)WLC346
Ashok Parihar, J.1. To construct a terminal market, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was issued for acquiring 66.85 hectares of land. After issuance of the above notification, looking to the urgency in the matter, a notification under Section 6 as also under Section 17(4) of the Act was also issued on 27.12.1996. After completing necessary formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer sent the proposed award for approval to the State Government as required under Section 11 of the Act. After due notice to all the parties concerned by the State Government, the proposed award was approved by the State Government with certain modifications and consequent to the said approval the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 26.12.1998. The above award dated 26.12.1998 is under challenge in the present writ petition with a further prayer for de- acquiring of the land in question.2. Learned Counsel for the petiti...
Om Industries Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj50
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The brief facts of the case are that a sick industrial unit M/s. Mundra Industries, F-119, Mandore Industrial Area, Jodhpur was put for auction as the said industry became defaulter in repayment of loan amount of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short 'RFC').3. The petitioner gave its bid and that bid was accepted by the RFC. The approval letter was issued to the petitioner by RFC on 14/16-7-2003. The price of fixed assets was assessed as Rs. 24.01 lakhs and the petitioner was directed to make initial payment of Rs. 6.01 lakhs being 25% of the sale price within a period of 15 days from the sanction letter. The petitioner deposited the said amount of Rs. 6.01 lakhs in time. The petitioner was to pay balance amount of Rs. 18.06 lakhs within a period of 5 1/2 years in 19 quarterly installment. The first installment was to fall due on first day of 12th month reckoned from the date of auction i.e. on 1-7-2004. Clause...
Vishnu Dutta Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1061; RLW2006(2)Raj1016; 2006(1)WLC780
S.P. Pathak, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh in Sessions Case No. 12/2000 - State v. Vishhnudutt Soni whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 25.10.1999 at 11 PM complainant Manakchand Soni presenting himself at Police Station Anoopgarh lodged a written report to the effect that his two daughters named Meera and Seema have been married to the sons of Bhera Ram, resident of Ward No. 9, Anoopgarh about three years ago. It was further stated in the report that on thatday at about 1:30 PM he received information at his home that his daughter Meera has received burn injuries and she has been admitted in th...
Munshi Vs. Tejvir
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2367; 2005(4)WLC682
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused the impugned order dated 2.12.2004 whereby the Trial Court rejected the application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with 151 CPC filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner has moved the application with the view to get the Commissioner appointed to ascertain the fact whether any construction has been demolished on the disputed plot in question or not.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Order 26 Rule 9 which deals with Commission to make local investigations-In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court.4. It is given out that the petitioner f...
Assistant Engineer (the) and anr. Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)WLC16
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 and award dt. 13.5.2002 (Annex. 3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar and notification dt. 2.12.2002 (Annex. 4) may be quashed and set aside.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 - workman raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. However, the said conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide notification dt. 27.12.2000 the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar.4. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The respondent No. 2 workman submitted statement of claim alleging inter alia that he was appointed on 1.2.1984 on daily wage basis and worked continuously till 31.12.1986. It was alleged that the respondent-workman had completed 240 days in calendar y...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »