Rajasthan Court December 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.
Raj Kumar Birla Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN77
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider him for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Gr. III (for short 'P.T.I.') with all consequential benefits from the date persons lower in merit than him were so appointed.2. Factual matrix of the case is that petitioner who possesses the degree of B.P.Ed. from Nagpur University applied for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Gr. III advertised by the District Education Officer (Secondary) I, Bhilwara in the year 1998-99. In the merit list prepared pursuant to the said selection process, his name appeared at serial No. 3. According to the petitioner, when he was illegally denied the appointment, he along with other three candidates filed a joint writ petition before this Court being S.B.C. Writ petition No. 979/99 which was disposed of on 13.12.2000 by a consent order that the controversy raised therein was covered by the decision of this Court repo...
Suresh Dharu Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN338
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. The basis of the challenge of proceedings of acquisition in this writ petition by the petitioners is that he has purportedly purchased the land from the power of attorney holder of M/s. Gordan Ram and seven others on 15.03.2000. The agreement is attested on 08.09.2000. There is a condition in the agreement that if the sale deed is not executed within one year, then the agreement would be annulled for the reasons and conditions stated in para 5 of the agreement. Thus, the right of the petitioner flow from this agreement.3. The agreement though executed on 15.03.2000 and attested on 08.09.2000 by Notary, could at best before specific purpose by the petitioner for getting the sale deed executed which has not been done as the same has not been made the basis of claiming a title over the land. An agreement only gives right to get it specifically enforced. The lands having not been sold by the registered sale-deed, no right can be claimed by the petitioners ove...
Sajini Devi and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN303
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. The principal challenge in this writ petition by the petitioners is of the nature that since the award was not made within two years of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire proceedings stands lapsed under Section 11A of the Act.3. The respondents have come in reply and have challenged the stand of the petitioners that possession of land was taken over by the respondent department before two years i.e. 08.08.2003 and the declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was published on 12.03.2001. Respondents have disputed the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the possession of the land was taken on 26.02.2003. Once the possession is taken, the implication of Section 11A of the Act is ruled out. 'Mauka Fard' was prepared on 26.02.2003 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 12.03.2001 which is well within two years. Once the possession is taken, Courts are unanimous on the ...
Bajrang Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1551
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is under Section 46 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959' hereinafter) against the judgment of the trial court dated 22.8.2005 passed in Election Petition No.259/2005. 3. The election petitioners-respondents Kanhaiya Lal and Suresh Kumar submitted election petition under Section 34 read with Section 40 of the Act of 1959 to challenge the appellant-Bajrang Lal's election as Member of the Municipal Council, Nokha for Ward No.21 on the ground that the appellant Bajranglal nonpetitioner no.4 before the court below was disqualified for being chosen as Member of the Municipal Council under Sub-section (i-b) of Section 26 of the Act of 1959. The disqualification for being chosen as Member of the Municipal Council under Sub-section (i-b) of Section 26 is that if a person is accused in criminal case and in which cognizance of the offence has been taken and the court has framed the charges a...
Paras Mal and anr. Vs. Ms. Sobhag Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj73
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the judgment dated May 1, 1999 of the Board of Revenue whereby it was held that if during the pendency of revenue suit, sale deed of the land is executed it is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and it is not necessary to get the sale deed set aside by Civil Court.2. Contextual facts depict that Smt. Sobhag Devi (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration, injunction and possession initially against Prem Devi (defendant No. 1) in the Court of Assistant Collector Dudu with the averments that the agricultural land bearing khasra No. 1225 measuring 4 bighas 6 biswas and khasra No. 1232 measuring 4 bighas 14 biswas situated in village Dudu was in joint khatedari of Padam Chand and Paras Mai. After the death of Padam Chand name of his wife Prem Devi (defendant No. 1 was substituted in revenue record. The plaintiff claimed in the suit that being the mother of Prem Chand she was also entitled to equal share as per the provisions ...
Suman (Smt.) Vs. Arvind Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN258
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the divorce decree dt. 19.04.2001 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Civil Misc. Case No. 94/1996. By the divorce petition, the applicant/respondent sought divorce against the non-applicant/appellant on the ground of cruelty.3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant wife and respondent husband took place on 09.07.1989. Out of the wedlock, one daughter was born to the appellant on 05.08.1991. According to the allegation levelled by the respondent husband, the appellant was of cruel nature and she was more inclined towards her mother and father rather than the respondent and the respondent's family. She never treated the respondent's house as her own house. It is also submitted that a gold ring and Rs. 4,200/- were given to the respondent by the appellant's parents at the time of ceremony before marriage but immediately after marriage, the appell...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahesh Bhan Gupta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN474
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in the instant appeal is to the order dt. August 31, 2006 of the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition preferred by the respondents has been partly allowed thus-In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned notification dt. 18.08.1992 (Annexure-5) so far as its applicability with retrospective effect i.e. 25.01.1992 is concerned, is declared ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are directed to re-fix pay of the petitioners as per the main Rule 26-A RSR as it existed on 02.07.1992 on the post of Accounts Officer with a further direction to grant arrears of re-fixation and pensionary benefits etc. within a period of three months from today.2. Contenstal facts depict that the respondents entered in the services of the appellant on the post of Accountant between 1965 to 1969 and subsequently all of them had been promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer in the year 1981 and 1982. Thereafter prom...
Usha (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Ishak and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN82
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The original Civil Misc. Appeal has been attached with this Special Appeal. For the present, Office objection No. 2 is waived.2. Admit. Issue notice.3. Mr. M.R. Singhvi who was appearing in the Misc. Appeal for the respondent No. 3 the only served respondent, present in Court was requested to accept notice on behalf of Insurance Company. After having perused the order dated 28.09.2006 and consequential order giving affect thereto, we are of the opinion that the order of dismissing the Miscellaneous Appeal for respondents 1 & 2 having not been served, deserves to be set aside. The unserved respondents are the residents of outside State of Rajasthan and are respectively driver and owner of the vehicle by which the accident was caused. In these circumstances it is too much to expect the heirs of the victim of the accident to find out the exact location of the driver and owner of the vehicle and to effect upon them a personal service as was directed by the learned Single...
Abhinav Sharma Vs. U.O.R and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN349
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Looking to the short controversy as raised, the writ petition is disposed of finally.2. The President of India Gold Medal was initiated in the respondent University by way of amendment in the Ordinance way back in the year 1994. The above Gold Medal was initiated in the name of the Late President Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma for a student adjudged best for general proficiency, including character, conduct, excellency in academic performance, extra curricular activities and social services. It is unfortunate that no such Gold Medal has been awarded to any student since inception. Even as per admission of the respondent University, consideration was also not made for awarding such Gold Medal in any year for one reason or the other. Though some excuses have been given in the additional affidavit, however, the same cannot be accepted. on the face of it, no serious steps were ever taken by the University authorities for appreciating overall performance of the students. Even ...
Suresh Kumar Agrawal (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN134
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order Annexure-2 dt. 05.08.2003 whereby the petitioner was suspended upon being found involved in a trap case of Anti Corruption Bureau for offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The petitioner was then holding the post of Additional Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shri Ganganagar (for short C.M. & H.O.). The respondents laid down certain guidelines for keeping a vigil over the Private Ultrasound Centers and Hospitals pursuant to the certain judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The C.M. & H.O., Shri Ganganagar in that connection by an order dt. 16.07.2003 constituted a committee consisting of three members including the petitioner. The aforesaid committee inspected Shiva Ultrasound Center run by Dr. Pramod Bedi and his wife Dr. Rita Bedi. According to the petitioner the committee found several irregularities there and prepared a report thereabout. The petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »