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.
Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2033
Guman Singh, J.1. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 23.7.2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror (Alwar), in Sessions Case No. 76/2002 State v. Kuldeep Singh, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302/34 IPCTo suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 323/34 IPCTo suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Both the sentence were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that injured Mahendra Singh s/o Ram Singh, r/o Tasingh, reached to the Police Station Behror at 8.40 a.m. on 29.3.2001 and submitted a written report (Ex. P.6), to the effect that is brother Vishal Singh, who resided at village Tonkani had come to see fair. Their brother's son had constructed a wall and fixed gate in the common space mea...
Dinesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2968
Guman Singh, J.1. The appellants five in number, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Kota, who vide judgment dated January 28,2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 98/2001 convicted and sentenced them as under:Dinesh Kumar: Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 307 IPC:To suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. Under Section 324 IPC:To suffer one year's simple imprisonment. Under Section 148 and 452 IPC:To suffer two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one month's.simple imprisonment. Under Section 323/149 IPC:To suffer six month's simple imprisonment. Sattu @ Satyanarayan: Under Section 148 and 452 IPC:To suffer two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one month's simple i...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bhagawan Giri and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1013]; (2008)ILLJ925Raj
Mohammed Rafiq, J.1. Application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act preferred by the employee, respondent No. 1, has been put up for consideration. Prayer is opposed on behalf of the appellant, Union of India, on the ground that the employee has remanded out of employment since 1988 and apparently has earned his livelihood during this period, and therefore, he is not entitled to wages under Section 17-B of the Act. In course of hearing it was submitted that the respondent may be put to strict proof of the fact that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. The submissions are in the teeth of statute and therefore cannot be accepted.2. Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act lays down that where in any case a Labour Court etc. by its award directs instatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings i...
Manmohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR540]
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Radio Mechanic Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute, Khetri, in the year 1968. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 10.11.1971. The above order of termination was set aside by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 584/1972 the this Court further/came, to be affirmed by Division Bench. Subsequently/another writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing S.B. Civil writ petition No. 3365/1987 also came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 30th January, 2001 directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as confirmed on the post of Radio Mechanic Instructor from the date he completed maximum period of probation provided under the relevant rules. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had already been granted the benefits of seniority, selection scale and other service benefits. The petitioner stood retired from his services on reaching superannuation on 31.9.2001. But the retiral be...
Bhagirath Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN340
Govind Mathur, J.1. By an order dt. 15.06.1972 appointment was given to the petitioner as Junior Soil Conservator for a period of one year or till the selected hands are made available by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. Though the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of one year but he was allowed to continue in service till his selection as Assistant Agriculture Officer by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 10.12.1979.2. The respondent-State by treating 20.06.1972 as the date of initial appointment of the petitioner by an order dt. 16.09.1994 allowed selection grades to him, but the same was withdrawn by another order dt. 29.10.1999 by treating 10.12.1979 as the date of appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dt. 29.10.1999 this petition for writ is preferred.3. It is urged that appointment under the order dt. 15.06.1972 in pursuant to which the petitioner joined service on 20.06.1972 was also made in accordance with the p...
Daulat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN381
Govind Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, while holding the post of Head Constable in Rajasthan Police (MBC), submitted an application dt. 18.01.2002 seeking voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 30.04.2002 as per the provisions of Rule 50(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). The Commandant, MBC, Kherwara, by an order dt. 02.02.2002 conveyed acceptance of the application dt. 18.01.2002 for voluntary retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.04.2002. After acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement the petitioner submitted an application dt. 01.04.2002 intending to withdraw the request for voluntary retirement, however, the same was refused by the Commandant, MBC, Kherwara on 05.04.2002. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.2. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner before coming into force retirement from service w.e.f. 30.04.2002 made an application f...
Radhey Shyam Jaga Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj908
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.1.2004 whereby the date of birth of the petitioner has been held 30 years on 7.3.1976 on the basis of medical certificate and he has been ordered to be superannuated on 31.3.2004. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to accept the date of birth as given in the school leaving certificate, which is 2.1.1950 for the purpose of retirement.2. The facts, in brief of the case, as per petitioner, are that the petitioner war, appointed as Helper in the erstwhile Rajasthan State Board on 6.10.1968 and his ago was entered as 18-1/2 years, in the, year 1984, the petitioner was asked to produce any proof of his age and he produced his school leaving certificate. On 17.1.2004, the respondents informed the petitioner that his date of birth has been accepted on the basis of medical certificate dated 7.3.1976 wherein it has been shown as 30 years (annexure-R/2). It has also been m...
Poonam Chand Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj885
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Project Jaipur, popularly known as Pink City, besides the - capital of the State of Rajasthan is an important tourist destination. The growth of the city is rapid. It is rated as one, of the fastest growing cities in the country. M/s. R.F. Properties and Trading Private Limited (respondent No. 4) says that the World Trade Park to be built by them shall be State of Art building to provide international showcase to the state industry. The building is to have a computer controlled integrated building management system, wireless LAN, Trade Information Bureau, Electronic Trading Facilities, Electronic Facilities for export enquiries, Auditoriums, Convention Center. Trade Fair Zones, Exhibition Centers, Showrooms. Display Centers, Corporate Offices, Guest Rooms, Multiplex, Conference Rooms with Video Conferencing Facility and Business Centers. The building shall have special zones for B.P.O. Industry and service providers, Bio-Technology, Information Technology, Banking ...
Srikaranpur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN11
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the instructions given by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner under a communication dt. 19.05.2001 to the petitioner to reemploy respondent No. 4 Shri Raj Kumar Sethi as Class-IV employee till a final decision is taken by a selection committee about his re-employment in service of the petitioner as a Class-IV employee.2. The facts giving rise to this petition for writ are that respondent No. 4 Shri Raj Kumar Sethi was in employment of the petitioner in the capacity of a clerk, however, by an order dt. 14.11.1988 passed by the General Manager of the petitioner society he was dismissed from service being found guilty for a serious misconduct i.e. of misappropriation of funds. A challenge was given by the respondent No. 4 to the order of dismissal by way of raising an industrial dispute that ultimately culminated into an award dt. 21.02.1998 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner holding therein the dismis...
Ladu Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN550
H.R. Panwar, J.1. an application being IA No. 2165/2006, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner Ladu Lal, after filing the writ petition, expired on 30.12.2004 and he is represented by his two grandsons, viz. Rajesh Raigar and Sanjay Kumar, who are sons of petitioner Ladu Lal's son Ram Narain and, therefore, the legal heirs of deceased petitioner Ladu Lal be substituted in place of deceased petitioner Ladu Lal.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The application seeking substitution of legal heirs of deceased Ladu Lal is allowed. Amended cause title has already been filed and the same be placed at the appropriate place in the file.3. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally heard and decided at the admission stage.4. By the instant writ petition, it is prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to make payment of outstanding amount and grant family pension for the services rendered by deceased Ram ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »