Rajasthan Court January 2006 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.
Rajasthan Survey and Settlement Employees Association Vs. State and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1006; 2006(2)WLC579
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Association of Survey-ors/Amins of the Settlement Department, claiming that the provisions contained in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules 1989, in short the Rules of 1989, in so far as they provide pay in the scale of 950-1680, to the Settlement Surveyors, be declared illegal, and the respondents be directed to pay to the Settlement Surveyors in the scale of 1200-2050, with consequential benefits. Other relief claimed is, for issuance of direction to the respondents, to grant Hard Duty Allowance, so also that the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Traveling Allowance Rules, 1971, be declared illegal, and a direction has been claimed, to grant T.A. & D.A., to the Settlement Surveyors.2. It is alleged by the petitioner, in the writ petition, that the revenue work of the Department is mainly divided in two parts, Survey and Settlement, and Revenue. Survey and Settlement Department conducts the survey of t...
S.P. Ratawal Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1183; 2006(1)WLC550
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that vide letter dated 28.6.2004. Deputy Registrar (Academic), University of Rajasthan informed the petitioner that Hon'ble Chancellor while exercising power under Section 21(1)(v) of the University Act, nominated the petitioner as a member of Syndicate for a term of three years w.e.f. 23rd June, 2004.2. The controversy arose when vide order dated 14.9.2005, in place of petitioner. Hon'ble Chancellor nominated respondent no. 3 as a syndicate member.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred Section 21 of the University of Rajasthan Act which deals with the formation of the syndicate. Relevant Section 21(1) provides that the Syndicate shall be the executive body of the University and shall consist of the following persons, namely, (i) Vice-Chancellor; (ii) Pro- Vice Chancellor, (iii) two persons nominated by the Vice- Chancellor, from amongst the Deans of Faculties; (iv) two University Professors nominated by the Vice Chancellor other t...
Jhamman and ors. Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1845; 2006(2)WLC716
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Out of fifteen accused indicated before learned trial Judge, Noor Mohammad, Kadar, Kanja @ Niwaz Khan and Patanga are dead and only eleven are before us who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge as under:Samshuddin:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer two months imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.Under Section 323 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Under Section 325/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment.(1) Jhamman, (2) Gafoor, (3) Rustam, (4) Sahab, (5) Deenu, (6) Saddi, (7) Sattar, (8) Muddin, (9) Haroon and (10) Abdul Kareem:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer two months imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two y...
Mahendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1855; 2006(2)WLC442
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner applied for Rajasthan State Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination 2003. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination as also the interview and as per the merit fixed, the select list has already been sent to the State Government by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner has been treated as a general candidate giving benefit of age relaxation as State Government Employee whereas the petitioner is claiming his candidature to be considered under the Non-Gazetted Employees Quota mainly on the ground that since general age relaxation has been given to all other categories, the candidates belonging to Non-Gazetted Employees should have also been given the same relaxation of three years.2. There is no dispute that for the above competitive examination, the cut off date has been fixed as 1.1.2004 for determining the age. The examinations are held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission under the Rajasthan...
Anda Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2231; 2006(4)WLC118
R.P. Vyas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 27, 2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur, by which accused -Anda has been convicted and sentenced under Section 366 IPC, to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer fifteen days' additional simple imprisonment; under Section 376 IPC, 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's additional simple imprisonment; under Section 342, IPC 6 month's rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 323*, IPC, 6 months' R.I. and under Section 324 IPC, one year's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on May 17, 2001 at 8.30 p.m., Kum. Dhani D/o Bhika by caste Garasia, R/o Parla-ka-Chaura, District Udaipur lodged a report (Ex.P/1) with the Police Station, Ogna, District - Udaipur that o...
Vasudeo (Through L.Rs.) and ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj250
ORDERGovind Mathur, J.1. In a suit for eviction from rented premises, an application was filed on 25-8-2004 by the defendant to permit him to summon certain witnesses in evidence. On 31-8-2004, when the application aforesaid was fixed for hearing, the defendant instead of pressing it produced Shri Vijay Kumar (D.W. 7) as witness and his statements were recorded. Two other defence g witnesses viz. Rajkumar and Ashok were g also present in Court on 31-8-2004 but their statements could not be recorded due to 2 paucity of time.2. The statements of Shri Rajkumar co (D.W. 18) were recorded by the Court on 21-9-2004. On 31-10-2004 an application was g preferred by the defendant under Order 6 and Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC seeking g amendment in written statement. The arguments on the application under Order 6, 8 Rule 17, CPC were heard by the Court on ' 13-12-2004 and the same stood accepted by an order dated 17-2-2005. After acceptance of the application referred to above g statement...
Sita Devi and ors. Vs. Raghuveer Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1531
K.C. Sharma, J. 1. Through this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellants seek to modify the award dated 6.11.1993 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,63,500 under different heads.2. On 14.6.1988 at 9.45 p.m., when Daljeet Singh was on way at M.I. Road, Jaipur, a minibus bearing No. RND 0285 hit him. It was alleged that the driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently and with excessive speed. As a result of this accident, Daljeet Singh sustained serious injuries and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries. It was stated that at the time of accident the age of deceased was 38 years and was posted as driver in Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Board.3. Learned Tribunal having concluded that the accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence of deceased and the driver of said minibus awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,27,000 and since the accident ...
Girraj Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: I(2006)ACC686
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Through this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1986, the appellants seek to modify the award dated 28.2.1994 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bayana, whereby the learned Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,000 to the injured.2. On 21.3.1988, a bus No. RNP-1417 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation dashed against Jonga GAC 7392 in which injured was travelling, as a result of which the injured suffered fractures of tibia and fibula bone. The learned Tribunal having found that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of bus, awarded a sum of Rs. 11,000 to the injured in the following manner:Loss of income Rs. 5,000.00For treatment Rs. 2,000.00Foe special diet Rs. 1,000.00For expenditure on medicine Rs. 2,000.00For mental agony Rs.1,000.003. It appears that during pendency of appeal, the appellant filed an application on 18.5.2005 for consideration of subsequent events. Along w...
Laxmi Lal Vs. Smt. Gulab Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj231; RLW2006(1)Raj834; 2006(2)WLC615
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By the impugned order dated 23.1.2006, learned Single Judge has dismissed the Restoration Application.2. Necessary facts for disposal of the instant appeal are that the appellant filed second appeal against the judgment & decree dated 1.11.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajsamand, through Mr. Manish sisodia, Advocate. As the objections pointed out by the office were not removed, the matter was listed before the Court. Learned Single Judge passed the peremptory order dated 2.12.2004 as follows:Learned Counsel for the appellant is granted three weeks time to remove the defects. In case the defects are not removed within aforesaid period, the second appeal shall automatically stand dismissed without reference to the Court.3. In view of the peremptory order, the second appeal stood dismissed on 18.1.2005.4. The appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking restoration of the appeal on the ground that the counsel for...
Rikhab Raj Kumbhat Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1715; 2006(2)WLC619
S.N. Jha, C.J.1.This writ petition is directed against the decision of the State Government contained in letter No. F. 17(27)FD(Gr.2)/83 in the light of which the Rajasthan High Court by order dated 28.6.1986 recalled its earlier order dated 7.3.1984 stepping up of the date of increment and the consequential fixation of pay of the petitioner. Besides the order dated 28.6.1986 the petitioner has also challenged orders dated 22.9.87, 21.3.88, 2.6.89, 10.1.90,31.8.90 and 20.11.90. By the said orders, the State Government clarified its stand and declined to modify the basic order and the High Court also declined to interfere.2. Shorn of details, facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that while working on the post of Civil Accountant in the Rajasthan High Court in the scale of Rs. 500- 940 and drawing the pay of Rs. 940/- the petitioner was promoted on the post of Superintendent cum Chief Accountant in the scale of Rs. 620-1100 on 2.1.1980. On promotion, his pay ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »