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.
Sushila (Smt.) Vs. Naveen Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN606
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. In this transfer application, notices for final disposal were ordered to be issued on 18.01.2008 returnable within four weeks. and further proceedings in Case No. 179/2007 pending in the Family Court, Udaipur were ordered to remain stayed for five weeks. Notices were returned unserved for want of correct and complete address and the matter was placed for orders before the Court on 03.03.2008.2. On 03.03.2008, this Court passed the following order:Notices have been returned back unserved for want of correct and complete address. The petitioner should file notices on correct and complete present address of the non-petitioner within two weeks. On being questioned, if the petitioner has filed reply to the petition pending before the Family Court at Udaipur, learned Counsel expresses want of instructions in that regard. If the petitioner has not filed reply so far, it shall be required of the petitioner to file reply to the petition as pending before the Family Court...
Ex. Sepoy Ram Karan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3116
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed validity of order said to have been passed by the Commanding Officer, 9 JAT, Army Headquarter, New Delhi, whereby he has been discharged from service. In the alternative, the petitioner has sought direction to grant him disability pension as recommended by the medical Board.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was recruited and inducted as an Infantry Soldier (GD) on 12.12.86. At the time of his enrollment, he was subjected to the medical examination by the Military doctors and he was found fit in all respect in medical category 'A' (AYE). While in service, the petitioner suffered from conjunctivitis in both the eyes. After due examination, the medical board placed the petitioner in the lower medical category CEE (Temporary) for a period of 3 months w.e.f. 3.8.91. The placement of the petitioner in the aforesaid category was approved by the higher authorities on 7.8.91. After expiry of pe...
Harneer Kaur (Smt.) Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2483
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This petition has been filed by petitioner for direction to the respondents to make payment of Rs. 80,000/- along with interest @ 12% till the date of realization of above amount, which she claimed for expenses incurred for permanent implantation of dual chamber pace maker during her treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi.2. The petitioner is at present working on the post of Staff Nurse in Mardana Hospital, Bikaner under the control of respondent No. 2. Petitioner suffered Cardiac disease and on account of said disease she was admitted to hospital and thereafter looking to seriousness of her ailment she was required to undergo Electro Physiological study for which she was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi. Pursuant to diagnosis made by AIIMS, she was advised for implantation of dual chamber pace maker for which she was directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,40,000/-, which petitioner paid and is evident from invoice filed along with writ petition as Annex. 3.3. Learned Counsel for t...
Kanu (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2945
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. The present petitioner is widow of late Shri Narain Ram, who was work charged employee of Forest Department. This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Kanu Devi for claiming family pension from the date of death of her husband with interest @ 15% p.a. so also for compassionate appointment.2. According to the facts narrated in the writ petition, the husband of petitioner late Shri Narain Ram was appointed as Beldar/ Cooli w.e.f. 16.3.1981. He was allowed to work for about ten years and thereafter seniority list was published, which is placed on record as Annex.2, whereby objections were invited for assigning proper seniority for balder. In the said list name of late Narain Ram was appearing at serial no. 16. Therefore, according to the Work Charged Rules, 1964, he was entitled to be given permanent status and his services were required to be regularised but unfortunately the services of Late Shri Narain Ram were not regularised and ultimately he died while in se...
Fattu Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Bhinya Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN280
Manak Mohta, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the claimantappellants against the common judgment and Award dt. 23.07.1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer (in short 'the Tribunal') in claim petition No. 9/93 filed by Moti Singh and Smt. Pura parents of deceased-Khema Ram and claim petition No. 10/93 filed by Smt. Fattu widow of deceased-Girdhari Ram and others, by which both the claim petitions were dismissed.2. In short the facts of the case as revealed from the record are that 17.04.1991 vehicle No. RJC-4377 was being driven by its driver(deceased)- Girdhari Ram, who whilst going alongwith cleaner (deceased) Khema Ram on National Highway No. 15 at about 7.30 'O clock in the morning when reached near 'Rudu Baba Ki Jhumpi' (13 Kms before Sindhari), at that time, truck No. GJ-9T-4170, which was being driven by Inder Singh (non-petitioner No. 3) in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, collided with truck No. RJC-4377, as a result of which,...
Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. the Revenue Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN568
ORDERSpecial Leave Petition is dismissed.17. In view of the above, I am of the view that the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgments passed by the Single Bench, Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as quoted above, and there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.18. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed above, it is clear that the khatedar-tenants/respondents have already been deprived of their legitimate right to receive compensation by Rajasthan Housing Board since long and in spite of the fact that Housing Board has already allotted 15% developed residential land in Mansarovar Jaipur as compensation to the similarly situated persons i.e. khatedar-tenants in connected/identical Writ Petition No. 3895/98 as referred above, so, in the interest of justice,1 think it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to direct the Rajasthan Housing Board to adopt same policy ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Maqbool Ahemad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2037
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Both the matters (criminal appeal filed by the State as well as criminal revision filed by the complainant) arise out of the same FIR and same incident, hence, they are decided by this common Judgment.2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.11.1991 passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate-lst Class, Tonk (Rajasthan), in criminal case No. 460/1987 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 406/34 IPC.3. The complainant preferred the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. for convicting the accused respondents as also for remanding the case for passing fresh orders.4. Brief facts of the case are as under:ifjoknh us fnuakd 11-8-1987 dks] ifjokni=] fo:) vfHk;qDrx.k vUrZxr /kkjk 406@120ch] 420] 467] 468] 34@109 Hkk-n-la-] bu rF;ks ds lkFk is'k fd;k gS fd mlus vius NksVs HkkbZ vehu eksgEen ds lEcU/k ds flyflys esa vius llqjky lkb...
Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios, S.A. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasa ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2757
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios, S.A. (in short 'the petitioner- company') is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the petitioner-company possesses the qualifying requirements and technical criteria laid down in Clause 3.00 of Part III of Specification under the caption 'special conditions of contract' and further to allow the petitioner-company to participate in the price bid, with a further direction to restrain the respondent from assigning any contract for 400 KV GSS at Bhilwara or Bikaner (TN 223 and TN 220) to any participant in the price bid for the said contract.Pleadings of The Parties2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner-company in the writ petition and the rejoinder, are that the petitioner-company company is a multi-national company with its headquarters at Madrid (Spain) having annual turn over of Rs. 9,000 Crores and has executed comparable p...
Santosh Devi Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3185
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to grant family pension and other service benefits applicable to her including commutation, exgratia, gratuity, insurance, etc., so also interest at the simple rate in delay in granting family pension..3. According to the facts of the case, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Beldar in the Irrigation Department on 10.11.1968 and thereafter his services were regularized and he was given permanent status vide order dated 1.6.1982. The husband of the petitioner died while working under respondent No. 3 and his son was provided appointment on the post of Beldar on compassionate ground. The petitioner has filed representations for granting family pension and other benefits but family pension was not granted to her and ultimately, petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents, which is placed on record as Anne...
Dr. Rajneesh Rajpurohit Vs. Savita and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj119
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner, whereby the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1 Bikaner vide order dated 8-7-2005 decided the issue Nos. 2 to 8 in the petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and refused to dismiss the petition of the non-petitioner for grant of maintenance.2. The facts leading to preferring this revision petition by the petitioner husband of the non-petitioner No. 1 and father of the non-petitioner No. 2 are that the marriage of the petitioner with non-petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 27-4-1996 at Bikaner. Out of wedlock, one son-non-petitioner No. 2 born. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's father was reformist, in favour of simple marriage and was against taking dowry. The petitioner's father was also of the view that the marriage should be solemnized without any show. The non-petitioner No. 1's father approached petitioner's father in the month of April...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »