Rajasthan Court May 2007 Judgments
Raghunath Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2459
Ashok Parihar, J. 1. Petitioner has been denied reimbursement of medical bills on the ground that the patient (wife of the petitioner) as taken to the A1IMS, New Delhi without seeking opinion of the Medical Board. Time and again this court as also the Apex Court have expressed anxiety in such matters. In the case of saving of a human life at a given point of time it is not expected of an attendant to indulge in all such formalities. Such procedure should not be expected to be followed in an emergency by the attendant of the patient. In case of grave emergency whichever hospital comes to the mind of the attendant and which hospital is considered just for saving the life of the patient is the prime consideration. Such decisions some times crucial for saving the life of an individual. If the conditions imposed by the respondents in their Scheme are applied so strictly, the end result may be disastrous and in the situation the patient may even die. It is only in normal circumstances the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rajiv Mangal Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Raj186; RLW2008(1)Raj576
1. Dr. Rajiv Mangal filed the writ petition in challenging the action of the respondents in not declaring him successful in the Pre-PG Medical Examination-2007. He passed MBBS course in the year 2002 and was thereafter appointed on contract basis as Medical Officer on 3-3-2003. He served for about three years in the rural areas and obtained a certificate from the Director, Medical and Health Services to that effect.2. Raj as than University of Health Sciences, Jaipur notified Pre-PG Medical Examination-2007 for admission to MD/MS/ Diploma Courses to be held on 28-1-2007. Instruction booklet provided for seats and reservations and eligibility for admission for various categories including the in-service candidates. That as per the seats and reservations, 72 seats were available for in service general category candidates is not in dispute. Inter alia, the eligibility for admission provided that candidate must have secured at least 50% marks in the general category at the Pre-PG Medical E...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3599; RLW2007(4)Raj3121
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. After dismissal of two applications, the appellant moved third application under Section 389, Cr. P.C. on the ground that since he had already served out sentence for a period of two years and five months and hearing of appeal in near future was not possible, he be released on bail. I, instead of passing any order on the application, decided to dispose of the appeal itself and that is how the matter has come up for hearing.2. The appellant was put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bundi, who vide judgment dated February 22,2006 convicted and sentenced him as under:Under Section 376, IPCTo suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.Under Section 341, IPCTo suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concu...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohaniya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3029
Narayan Thanvi, J.1. This Murder Reference for confirmation of death sentence awarded to accused Sohaniya for having committed the offence under Section 396 IPC has been submitted by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Pratapgarh in Special Sessions Case No. 50/2001 - State v. Sohaniyaand Ors. Accused Sohaniya and six other accused appellants have also filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 651/2005, against their conviction & sentences for the various offences as under:1. Under Section 120B IPC Sentenced to 5 Years' R.I. & to pay a fine ofRs. 1000/- & in default, to further undergo oneyear's S.I.2. Under Section 148 IPC Sentenced to 3 years' R.I. & to pay a fine ofRs. 1000/- & in default, to further undergo oneyear's S.I.3. Under Section 395 IPC Sentenced to imprisonment for life & to pay aor in Alternative fine of Rs. 5000/- & in default, to furtherSection 395/149 IPC undergo one year's S.I.4. Under Section 396 IPC (1) Accused Sohaniya: Sentenced to death and topay a fine of Rs. 1000/...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Bhushan Vs. Rajendra Kumar Verma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3563
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.This revision, in fact transfer petition, has been filed by the defendant in the Civil Original Case No. 70/98 seeking transfer of above case from the Court of Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Jodhpur to any other Court.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he sought time in trial Court for cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses because of his personal sickness as he was suffering from fever, but the Court did not adjourn the matter and the Court observed that the Court will not adjourn the case on any ground and the learned Judge below lost his temper and made some observation from which it is clear that now, the petitioners defendants has no chance of getting justice from the Judge who may loose his temper and pass adverse order against petitioner.3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner sought adjournment in the trial Court because the counsel was sick, but the prayer was re...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Kumar Jha Vs. Mithlesh Jha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC113
Guman Singh, J.1. Challenge in the instant appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 29.1.2005 passed by the learned Family Court, Ajmer, whereby the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the appellant-husband (for short 'the husband') in Case No. 250/2001 seeking divorce from respondent-wife (for short 'the wife') on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the husband (Basant Kumar Jha) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty wherein it was averred that he was married to respondent on 2.12.1988 at Ajmer as per Hindu rites. One son aged 11 years and one daughter aged 7 years were born out of their wedlock. For some time, the wife behaved normally but on being appointed as Senior Teacher in Government service, her behaviour changed. She started quarrelling with parents of the husband and also refused to attend daily household work on the pretex...
Tag this Judgment!Sukh Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2918
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure, on behalf of two accused-appellants, namely, (1) Sukhram S/o Budhram Yadav and (2) Rakesh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Jat, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.6.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishan-garhbas, District Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 67/02 (17/02), whereby each appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 397, Indian Penal Code, to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 5,00/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' additional simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 7.1.2002 at about 8.00 PM a written-report (Exhibit P-1) was lodged by PW-1 Raju S/o Pratap Singh, at Police Station Kotkasim, Alwar, wherein it was alleged that he is resident of village Shahjahapur and working as driver on Indica Car No. RJ 02 T 0120 of Santra Devi W/o Balwant Singh. On 7.1.2002 at a...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabh Darshan Hotel Private Limited and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2900
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This Misc. appeal has been preferred by the defendants to challenge the order of the trial court dated 10.3.2006 by which the learned Addl. District Judge, Nathdwara allowed the respondent's injunction application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and directed both the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the property in dispute and permitted defendants No. 3 and 4 to close the door if they are opened, so that unwanted persons may not entered into the property and the properly may be protected properly. It is also ordered that if any preventive measures are taken by the administrative authorities by preventing of entry of unwanted persons in the disputed property then the particulars of those measures be furnished to the trial court.2. Brief facts which have emerged from the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record are required to be mentioned for the purpose of deciding this appeal. It is said that a Patta was issued for the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Vittoli Devi (Smt.), Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN266
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By these three writ petitions, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents for granting the pension and other pensionary benefits. Since all the writ petitions involve identical questions of facts and law, therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are being heard and decided by the common order taking the facts of SBCWP No. 1325/2006 as the leading case.2. The husband of the petitioner was a work-charge Mistry and he was declared semi-permanent on the post. He voluntarily retired from service after completion of about 24 years' service. Petitioner's husband submitted an application for grant of family pension on 24.04.1997 and he expired on 12.02.1999. After his death, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of pension and family pension, which has been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order Annx.12 dt. 18.08.2005.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. The controversy involved in these...
Tag this Judgment!Mangat Lal Sidana Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN436
Govind Mathur, J.1. As a consequent to regular selection the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer with Department of Irrigation in the year 1971. A promotion in adhoc capacity as Assistant Engineer was accorded to him in the year 1973. While holding the post aforesaid he was subjected to an inquiry that resulted into an order dt. 28.07.1995 imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner by way of filing a civil suit before the Court of Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur City assailed validity of the order aforesaid and also the entire inquiry proceedings. By the judgment and decree dt. 14.10.1997 the suit preferred by the petitioner was partially decreed with a direction to disciplinary authority to consider representation submitted by the petitioner and to pass an order consequent to the inquiry afresh.2. The disciplinary authority accordingly after considering the representation submitted by the petitioner by an order dt. 16.05.2000 imposed a penalty of stoppage...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »