Rajasthan Court January 2008 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2106
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for respondent.2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the order dated 9-8-1990 passed by the Civil Judge & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa in case No. 7/86 (258/75) in which he has acquitted the accused respondent (Kanhaiya Lal) for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.3. The brief facts of the case are that on 12-8-1975 Surajmal Sethi, Enforcement Officer, Jaipur has submitted a written report (Ex. 13) by post in the name of SHO, Police Station Bassi, stating therein on dated 25-11-1972 he has visited Firm M/s. Mool Chand Kanhaiya Lal Food and Crude Oil Seller in village Jatwara, he found that the said Firm has obtained licence of retailer and did the business of wholeseller. He also found other irregularities. In this manner he has violated Section 6(3) of the Rajasthan Food Grain Dealer Licence Order, 1960.4. Upon the aforesaid repor...
S.C. Gupta (Dr.) Vs. University of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1959
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on same set of facts similar controversy has been raised, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order as prayed by counsel for the parties.2. The matter relates to consideration for personal promotion under Career Advancement Scheme as framed by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter to be referred as Commission) for promotion to the post of Professor from the post of Associate Professor. After scheme been framed by the University Grants Commission criteria for consideration for such promotion was earlier fixed by the Commission on 19.5.2001. The norms and criteria was however subsequently revised vide order dated 21.5.2002. A corresponding notification was also issued by the respondent-University on 20.7.2005. The revised criteria was to be made effective from 1.3.2002.3. It appears that as per criteria laid down earlier in the year 2001, the respondent-University gave promotions to some of the persons un...
Rajendra Prasad Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR720]; (2008)IIILLJ184Raj
R.C. Gandhi, J.1. This writ petition has been presented seeking to quash the orders dated August 30, 2003, July 7, 2004 and October 6, 2004 and to direct the respondent No. 1 to provide a chance to the petitioner-workman to lead evidence.2. The petitioner-workman is the employee of the respondent No. 2. His services came to be terminated vide order dated June 5, 1991. The petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute. An application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was presented by the respondent No. 2 before the respondent No. 1 for approval of the termination order. The petitioner (respondent therein) was notified. The respondent No. 1, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal') directed the respondent No. 2 to lead his evidence which was led. Thereafter the petitioner-workman was directed to lead his evidence on April 23, 2003. He was provided another chance to lead evidence on July 30, 2003 but he could not produce his evidence...
Lrs. of Sawant Singh Vs. Chandra Prabhu Bhagwan Digambar JaIn Mandir a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN54
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. In this second appeal, the appellant is seeking indulgence of the Court on the ground that appellant's-defendant's evidence was closed by the trial Court on second occasion only. After decree when appellant raised grievance against the closure of evidence of the appellant, the first Appellate Court refused to set aside the decree in spite of the fact that appellant's evidence was closed on second occasion only.3. According to learned Counsel for the appellant it had resulted into grave injustice to the appellant-defendant. Learned Counsel for the appellant even requested this Court to issue direction to the appellant to furnish the grounds why he did not appear on the second occasion in the trial Court when case was fixed for his evidence.4. The facts of the case are peculiar because of the reason that appellantdefendant's whose evidence was closed on second occasion by the trial Court wants to challenge the order of the tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›