Rajasthan Court May 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.
Sayed Noman Ahmed Vs. Ram Kishore
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj122
Vineet Kothari, J.1. The real litigation starts after the decree, is a saying in the legal circles which explains the pain of the decree holder in the execution of the decree. Long periods, repetitive and unsustainable objections and delay in judicial process itself adds insult to the injury and the decree holder even after winning the suit remains a loser. The present case is a glaring example of this phenomenon.2. The plaintiff decree holder Ram Kishore adopted son of Shri Hanuman Bux holds a decree of eviction dated 13.9.1976 for seeking eviction of suit premises, a dilapidated portion of residential house most of which has been converted into land simply by rains and non maintenance and the said decree has not been executed even after two rounds of execution application and the matter reaching upto High Court in the meanwhile. The judgment debtor, the petitioner in the present revision petitions Mr. Sayed Noman Ahmed, an Advocate practising in Sikar is the objector in the execution...
Alka Mathur (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN55
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order Annex.4 dt. 16.03.2005 passed by the respondent No. 3 District Collector, Jodhpur whereby a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner.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 served with a notice initiating proceeding under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the CCA Rules' hereinafter). Vide order Annex.4 dt. 16.03.2005, the District Collector, Jodhpur found the charge proved against the petitioner and imposed the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. From the order impugned Annex.4, it appears that there was a campaign 'Prashasan Aapke Dwar' and the State Government orgni...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State Transport Appella ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN293
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter, to be called 'the Corporation') challenging the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter, 'the Tribunal') dt. 15.10.2003 (Annex.-4) and for restoring the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dt. 21.03.2002 whereby the RTA, after coming into force of the agreement dt. 18.07.2001, fixed the route in question reserved for the Corporation, therefore, the Corporation applied for grant of 4 permits to operate 8 single trips to the RTA, Chittorgarh. After considering the matter in its entirety the RTA was pleased to grant 4 permits to operate 8 single trips in favour of the Corporation vide resolution dt. 21.03.2002 for Chambal Dam-Begun route.2. Respondents No. 3 and 4 preferred a revision petition against the said resolution dt. 21.03.2002 before the Tribunal after lapse of more than one year. Alongwith the revisio...
Jinya (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN36
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Both these writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, they are being heard and decided together. For the purpose of decision of these two writ petitions, the facts stated in the Writ Petition No. 5263/2006 are taken as a leading case.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these writ petitions are that petitioner Smt. Jinya and petitioner Smt. Jiyanda were appointed by the respondent Child Development Project Officer, Jaisalmer on the post of Anganwadi workers. Petitioner Smt. Jinya was appointed at Anganwadi Centre, Javandh Juni-I vide order dt. 01.11.1994 and petitioner Smt. Jiyande was appointed at Anganwadi Centre, Javandh Juni-II vide order dt. 07.09.1990 and both the petitioners have been working since their appointment at their respective place of posting. By order dt. 28.10.2005, the respondent No. 4 temp...
Kiran Devi (Smt.) Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2093
Guman Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2003, passed by Judge, Family Court, No. 2, Jaipur, in Divorce Case No. 17/2001 filed on behalf of the respondent-husband whereby the petitioner for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') was allowed.2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage was filed by the respondent-husband (for short 'husband') stating therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu Rites on 21.2.1996 and they had two issues out of their wedlock. It was averred that the appellant-wife (for short 'wife') was suffering from mental disorder and even prior to her marriage she usually became unconscious and started crying. She was treated by Dr. Ramesh Sharma of her village and was also taken to Bhandari Hospital where she remained hospitalized from 1.7.1996 to 3.7.1996. Thereaf...
Kedharnath Meghwal (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3280
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner is seeking exemption from appearing in the screening test held for shortlisting the candidates for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Surgery) on the ground that been working on temporary basis for more than 3 years, he should not be subjected to screening test. Reliance has been placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Bhanwar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1995(1) RLR Page 487.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Commissioner, on the other hand, has submitted that the earlier judgments of this Court on the point in issue have either been impliedly overruled or clarified by the Supreme Court. Referring to all the judgments on the point in issue this Court has also passed a detailed judgment in the case of Dr. Ravindra Yadav v. State of Raj. and Ors. 2006(2) RLR Page 157 : RLW 2006(2) Raj. 1591.3. In view of the judgment referred above, the relief as sought cannot be granted by this Court in the present...
Anju Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3363
Krishan Kumar Acharya, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.2. The respondent No. 3 has expired. No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 3.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that FIR was lodged by third person. The learned Magistrate vide its order dated 17.11.1994, took cognizance against the petitioner and two other accused for offence under Section 382 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case was committed to Sessions Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments on charge came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against accused Anju (the present petitioner), Ram Chandra and Shrawan Kumar. Since other offenses under Section 382, 380 and 411 IPC is triable by Magistrate, First Class, therefore, he transferred the case under Section 228 Cr.P.C. from the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) to the court of CJM, Bikaner for trial.'4. I have perused the order dated 8.2.2005 pa...
Madho Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN342
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the order dt. 07.05.1984 passed by the Dy. Development Commissioner (Administration-II), Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reverted as Class-IV employee from the post of Gram Sewak.2. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner entered in the services of the respondent Panchayat Samiti, Luni being appointed as Class-IV employee on 28.08.1965. A promotion was accorded to him as 'Gram Sewak' on temporary basis by the Secretary, District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur. Being brought in knowledge of the Dy. Development Commissioner (Administration-II) and after considering the same, the order impugned dt. 07.05.1984 was passed directing the Secretary of the District Employees Cadre Committee, Jodhpur to revert the petitioner as Class-IV employee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petitio...
Atma Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2096
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated August 21, 2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu, whereby the five appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:Appellants Atma Ram & Vijay Kumar:Under Section 302/120B IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Under Section 460 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Under Section 382 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous for eight years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for six months.Appellants Gyan Chand, Kailash Chand & Radha Devi Under Section 411 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2....
Babu Lal Vs. Gopa Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2304
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is disposed of at this stage itself.2. The appellant is the original claimant who instituted Claim Petition No. 79/2002 in view of personal injury which he sustained in a motor accident. The appellant claimant while driving his scooter met with an accident and sustained injuries. According to the claimant, because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus of respondent Corporation, the said accident occurred in which he sustained fractures of two fingures. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 20,000/- in favour of claimants with 6% interest from the date of award.3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. However, at the time of arguments, learned Counsel for the claimant restricted his prayer and submitted that the Tribunal has gravely erred in awarding interest only ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »