Rajasthan Court April 2007 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.
Keli Devi (Smt.) Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN154
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and provide her compassionate appointment as also to pay the payment of unutilized privilege leave, provident fund, insurance, extra duty allowance etc. with interest @ 18% per annum.2. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents. In para 6 of the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5,60,700/- has been deposited before the Workmen Compensation, Sirohi in compliance of the order date 03.05.2002 in a claim case being Suit No. 03/2001. The petitioner has also been paid a sum of Rs. 6267/- against unutilized privilege leave and Rs. 18,619/- as final payment of GPF and Rs. 25,000/- against the workman welfare fund vide order dt. 18.10.2001.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that gratuity payment has not been paid. However, in para 9 of the reply, it ha...
Devban Goswami Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN518
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annex. 8 dt. 29.09.2005 and the consequential order Annex. 9 dt. 01.10.2005.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk. Thereafter he was selected and appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade II and lastly he was holding the post of Stenographer Grade II. He submitted an application Annex. 1 dt. 11.04.2005 seeking voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The application seeking voluntary retirement under the VRS was forwarded vide letter Annex. 2 dt. 16.04.2005 to the respondent No. 3 Additional Director (Adm.) by the respondent No. 4. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application Annex. 3 dt. 01.07.2005 seeking withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement under the VRS. However, on receiving the...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pawan Tikkiwal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ2570; RLW2007(3)Raj2111
R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. While descending from the hill top Jain Temple, popularly known as 'Chulgiri', the father, Yogesh Kumar ('the deceased' for short) and his son, Pawan Kumar Tikkiwal ('respondent No. 1' for short) met with an accident when their scooter slipped due to the rough and bumpy road. Because of the injuries sustained by Yogesh Kumar, he expired on 14.9.2000; Pawan Kumar Tikkiwal, respondent No. 1, became paralysed from waist below. Immediately, after the said accident, the relatives of respondent No. 1 and the deceased who had gathered at the base of the hill, took the respondent No. 1 and his father to the S.M.S. Hospital. Four days later, on 14.9.2000, one Ganesh Tikkiwal, the brother-in-law of the deceased, lodged a First Information Report (FIR for short) at Police Station Transport Nagar, Jaipur. On the basis of the report a FIR for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC was registered. According to the FIR the deceased and the respondent No. 1 were desce...
Renu (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Deceased Shri Baboolal's legal representative ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2508
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner/judgment debtor is aggrieved against the order dated 21.2.2007 by which the executing court dismissed the petitioners' objection petition filed under Section 47 CPC dated 5.12.2006.3. It will be appropriate to narrate few facts why the present objection petition was filed by the petitioners.4. A suit was filed by the plaintiff/decree holder which was compromised in Lok Adalat in pursuance of compromise decree dated 19.12.1992 was granted by the trial court. As per the decree, the plaintiff and defendant were required to construct their own separate walls leaving the space between the walls as open. When the defendants started raising construction in common lane, then execution petition was filed by decree holder in the year 1994 and in that execution proceedings, even application was filed for obtaining interim order of injunction against the judgment debtor so that he may not proceed with the construction of w...
Heera Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ213; 2007(4)ARBLR417(Raj); 2008(1)CTLJ97(Raj); RLW2007(4)Raj3232
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Lost in the legal ocean, like Ulysses in the Odyssey, the appellant has been waiting for his compensation for the last twenty years. Having entered into a contract with the Government of Rajasthan in 1987 for remodeling of earthwork, the appellant has been drifting from one Court to another; this case has travelled from the lowest to the highest rung of the judiciary. And the journey is still endless.2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 28-2-2002 passed by the District and Sessions Judge. Karauli, whereby the learned Judge has set aside the Award dated 31-8-1995 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in favour of the appellant.3. This case has a checkered history. In order to remodel the Panchana Canal, the Irrigation Department had invited tenders. On 16-7-1985, the Department granted a contract to the appellant for remodeling earthwork from Chain-71 to 87 of Panchana Irrigation, Sub-Division-I, Karauli for Rs. 5,76,352/- @ 40% of the G-Schedule. An agreement was ...
Gopal Krishan Pareek Vs. Bhawani Shanker and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2719
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of award dated 1.5.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur city, Jaipur. For 9% of disability, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the appellant. The appellant is still aggrieved by the said compensation amount. Hence this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.10.1996, around 1.00 PM when the appellant was riding his scooter near Government Hostel, a car, bearing registration No. RJV-4713, collided with the scooter. Consequently, the appellant suffered certain injuries. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate his case, he examined himself and produced two witnesses. The respondent No. 1 also examined a Single witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation as aforementioned.3. Mr. K.N. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that according to Section...
Kusum Lata and anr. (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3297
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.5.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against petitioner No. 1, Smt. Kusumlata, for offences under Sections 302/34, 328/34, 324/34 and 342 IPC and in the alternative, for offence under Section 306 IPC. The learned Judge has also framed charges against petitioner No. 2 Kumari Sanju for offences under Sections 302, 328, 324/34, 342 IPC and in the alternative under Section 306 IPC.2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 16.10.1996, the complainant, Deen Dayal, submitted a written report at Police Station Shivaji Park, Alwar, wherein he alleged that on that day, around 10 O'clock in the morning his son Sanjay had gone to his uncle's house situated at Nehru Nagar at Alwar. Dispute had been going between Sanjay and One Ranveer Choudhary of Nehru Nagar over the love affair that had developed between Sanjay and Ranveer Choudhary's daughter Kumari Sanju...
Bhagwan Das Mittal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1713
R.C. Gandhi, J.1. Petitioners, by means of all these petitions, have challenged the impugned transfer orders, passed by the respondents. These petitions having common facts and law are being decided by this common order.2. The impugned transfer orders have been challenged on the grounds that the transfer has caused hardship to the petitioners as their children are minor and school going and there are no member in the family to look after them. The respondents impugned action of transferring the petitioners is mala Tide and arbitrary. The petitioners have been transferred to a place which is at a long distance. Policy of transfer/posting had not been adhered to by the respondents. Transfers have been made in mid-session of the school. In some of the petitions, it is averred that they have been transferred on complaint filed by the outsider against the petitioners, without holding an inquiry therein. The Election Commissioner has banned the transfers by an explicit order. The original or...
Heera Lal Vs. Addl. District Judge No. 2 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2115
Prem Shanker Asopa, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally and is being decided.2. The facts, in beief, of the case are that the petitioner Heera Lal was one of the non-petitioner before the Election Tribunal. He was served with the notice on 5.5.2005 and was required to file the reply by 3.8.2005 as per provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, but the reply was filed on 5.9.2005. The reason for delay was that the reply was prepared prior to 3.8.2005, but by inadvertence the same was misplaced by his Advocate in some other file on being tracing out the same, the reply was filed on 5.9.2005, therefore, the time for filing reply may be extended.3. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents.4. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that there was no deliberate and intentional delay in filing the reply rather the same was by inadvertence and as the reply was misplaced by the Advocate in some other file. The Court has committed an illegalit...
Ram Pratap @ Makiya and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2526
Chatra Ram Jat, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.5.2003 passed by the Special Additional District & Sessions Judge (M.U.& Dahej Cases) Sri Gangagnar, whereby he convicted and sentenced accused appellants Ram Chandra @ Makiya and Om Prakash under Section 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code and sentenced for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- each and a in default of payment of fine, to further under go for a period of two months' rigorous imprisonment. He further ordered for offence under Section 306 IPC sentenced for 3 years each accused appellants and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to under go for one months' additional rigorous imprisonment. Both sentences are ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story is woven like this:(i) On 18.5.2000 complainant Harjinder Singh and his wife along with his three daughters viz. Lali, Nirmaljeet and Sohanjeet Kaur was in village Mohala and were sleeping in court yard of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »