Rajasthan Court April 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.
Mohammad Hasan Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2050
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated December 7, 1999 of the learned Single Bench whereby the appellant was not found entitle to disability pension.3. As per the admitted facts, the appellant remained in field services upto March 1973 and disease Hyper Metaropia Partial Amblyopia Rt Eye was diagnosed somewhere in June 1974 after the appellant was posted in operation with cactus war with neighbouring country.4, A look at Annexure R/2 appended to the reply filed by the respondents before the learned Single Bench, demonstrates that in the opinion of Medical Board, the appellant had not suffered from any disability before entering into service. Opinion of the Medical Board was incorporated in Part III of the document and the extract of which reads as under:(1) Did the disability/disabilities exist before entering service? -No3(a) Was the disability, attributable to the Individual's own neglig...
Bachhana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2949
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to release all retiral benefits i.e. pension, gratuity to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date the same has become due till the same is paid. Further it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant selection grade to the petitioner on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service.2. According to the facts of the case stated in the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as Pump Driver under the Work Charged Rules in the pay scale of 75-160 on 1.10.1965 and he was also allowed regular increments.3. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in which a compromise was arrived at in between the parties and in that compromise, the petitioner agreed to accept his seniority on the post of Electrician Grade-H to be determined w.e.f. 6.12.1969, so also accept...
Vimal Mehra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3062
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The Habeas Corpus petition appears to have been filed by taking recourse to Sub-section 2 of Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides as under:When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life, the sentence on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment to a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently.2. Admitted position is that detenue/accused Hemu @ Hemant, who was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 302, 148 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, stood acquitted by the High Court in D.B. Criminal appeal No. 1275/2002, decided on January 3, 2008.3. During the period when Hemant was in custody, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, in case No. 15/2007, convicted and sentenced him under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. It was further directed that period of...
Kum. Priyanka Sharma @ Ranu Vs. Rajendra @ Bablu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN298
Manak Mohta, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the father-the natural guardian of minor injured-claimant Kum. Priyanka Sharma @ Ranu against the judgment and Award dt. 20.12.1996 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali (in short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 61/92 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,000/- only in favour of the claimant plus interest @ 12% from the date of filing of claim petition.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 13.10.1991 at about 6'O clock in the morning while the claimant's father alongwith his family members including the claimant-Priyanka aged 8 years were going from Jaipur to Ambaji for 'darshan' in a mini bus No. RJ-14P- 1129 on the way due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Rajendra @ Bablu (respondent No. 1), the bus got turtled whilst taking turn in between Sanderao and Sumerpur, as a result of which all the passengers sitting insi...
Pradeep Kumar Vs. Civil Judge (S.D.) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN523
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel and perused the material placed on record.2. During the course of submissions, learned Counsel Mr. Rajesh Choudhary apppearing for the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 has rightly not attempted to justify the impugned order dt. 01.12.2007 and submitted that though the petitioner-defendant was extended sufficient opportunities for concluding his evidence but he failed to avail of the same and then, for his Counsel pleading no instructions, proceedings were taken ex parte but in the circumstances of the case, if the petitioner produces his entire evidence on the next date fixed before the learned trial Court, i.e., 30.04.2008 and makes payment of reasonable amount of costs then, he may be permitted to take part in the proceedings but the only anxiety of the plaintiff-respondent is that the trial of the suit should proceed expeditiously. Learned Counsel Mr. Choudhary while justifying his prayer for imposing costs has placed for perusal certified cop...
Abhishram Anubandh Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN181
Manak Mohta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties in respect of application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of Arbitrator.2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and a workcontract was awarded to the applicant-firm for 'Operation & Maintenance of Main Pump House No. 1 to 4 of Jaisamand Water Supply Project, Udaipur', for that, a written agreement (Annex.1) was executed between the parties on 31.01.1999 having Arbitration Clause 23 in it wherein it has been provided that in case any sort of dispute arises in respect of aforesaid contract or execution of work related to the said agreement, the matter will be resolved through arbitral proceedings. As per the original agreement, the work was to start from 31.01.1999 and was to be completed by 30.01.2000 but the same was extended and the applicant discharged its contractual obligation...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›