Rajasthan Court May 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.
Devi Kishan Harijan Vs. Uco Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1138]; RLW2009(1)Raj199
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents for providing appointment on compassionate ground and also prayed for quashing the order dated 25.4.2006 (Annex. 4), whereby, claim of petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent bank.2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner's father late Shri Bikha Ram was working on the post of Class IV employee (Sweeper) in the respondent Bank. He died on 27.10.99 while in service. As per petitioner, his father late Shri Bikha Ram left behind his widow Smt. Shanti, five daughters and one son (petitioner) and at the time of death of his father he was minor and being only son of deceased employee the widow of late Shri Bikha Ram submitted an application for appointment of his son on compassionate ground so as to maintain the family. The application of petitioner was forwarded to Head Office stating therein that monthly income of the family of lat...
Ram Chandra Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR437]; RLW2008(4)Raj3322
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to declare him entitled to get payment for services rendered in Food Corporation of India beyond 28.2.1996, more specifically from 1.31996 to 24.10.1997. Further, it is prayed that the recovery of the amount by the respondents vide Annexure P/1 for the period from 1.3.1996 to 24.10.1997 may be declared illegal. However, it is prayed that the impugned letter dated 8/9.6.2005 Annexure-P/3 issued by the respondent No. 3 may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to make payment of Rs. 1,45,947/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it became payable till the actual date of payment.2. According to the facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed in the Central Food Department of India on 13.2.1962 on the post of Shifter. Thereafter, he was transferred to Food Corporation of India where he worked till his superannuation. All of a sudden the petitioner was relieved ...
Shrawan Ram Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3170
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25/4/2006 (Annex.9) and order dated 20/9/2006 (Annex.12). Further, it is prayed that the order dated 7/10/2005 (Annex.13) issued by the State Government to the extent it provides for constitution of advisory committee and making its recommendation on the point to the District Collector may kindly be quashed and set aside because the same being contrary to the Order of 1976. Further, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the recommendation made for allotment by the Allotment Advisory Committee on 15/2/2006 and further direction to the respondents to appoint him as a retailer of the Fair Price Shop of Village Dangawas as he falls in priority than Shri Deva Ram as per Notification Annex.5. 2. The facts leading to this case are that the petitioner being & member of Schedule Caste and an orthopaedically disabled person having qualification of secondary from the Board of Secondary Edu...
Jetha Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3326
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this petition petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order of termination dated 31/3/2006 (Annex.5). 2. The facts leading to this case are that petitioner was recruited in BSF and directed to report at STC on 31/10/2005 for basic recruitment training. While attending the weapon lecture class on 16/11/2005 petitioner became unconscious and he was taken to MI Room of STC, BSF, Kharkan, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) where he remained under treatment. On 18/11/2005, petitioner was referred to Medical Specialist Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur where he was advised CT Scan of Brain. Thereafter, on 23/11/2005 petitioner suffered two attacks of fits within an interval of 5-6 hours. On 24/11/2005 he was again referred to Psychiatrist, Civil Hospital Hoshiarpur along with CT Scan report where he was diagnosed as a case of G-40 and advised necessary treatment for ten days. As per opinion of Specialist, petitioner is a case of Epilepsy, therefore, his case was taken up w...
Baldev Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3037
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of bail granted by the learned Court below on 11.2.2008. It is the said order of bail passed in favour of the accused non-petitioner No. 2 Devi Ram, is under challenge in this application for cancellation of bail, under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.2. Broad facts of the case are that a report came to be lodged in the year 2006. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and the challan came to be filed against Kishori Shyam and Gopal. The Investigating Agency was of the view that no case was made out against Devi Ram Meena.and Prem Sukh.3. Subsequently, after framing of the charge against the aforesaid persons, under Section 302/34 IPC, the prosecution evidence was recorded. After recording of the statements of the five prosecution witnesses, an application came to be filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against three persons, who had been left out by the Investigating Age...
Ram Avtar Khatik and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2752
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The question that emerges for our consideration in the instant cases is:Whether the sentence is actually continuing to run during emergent parole period?2. In Rishipal v. State of Raj. and Anr. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6462/2007 decided on 13.3.2008, it was held that during the parole period, there is no suspension of sentence but the sentence is actually continuing to run during that period also.3. The contention of learned Advocate-General Mr. B.P. Agarwal is that the case of the petitioners is governed under the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short the Parole Rules). Rule 12 of the Parole Rules provides as under:Parole period regarded as imprisonment served- The period for which a prisoner stays on parole under Rule 9, without violating the conditions laid down for the purpose, shall be treated as imprisonment served by him. All other kinds of parole shall be treated as sentence suspended.4. Undinably, ...
Suraj Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3036
Raghuvenra S. Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. I have perused the First Information Report reproduced in the bail application and the rejection order passed by the learned Court below on 18.1.2008. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the present petitioner is similar to that of Lal Chand Saini who had already been enlarged on bail. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the accused Suraj Gupta is entitled for bail.3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submitted that taking into consideration the nature of accusation against the petitioner Suraj Gupta and other accused persons, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner.4. The instant case initiated by Vijay Jain and four other persons, who filed a complaint before the Special Operation Group, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur. The detail report and also the note appended to it, goes to show that in the name of private finance company, many people have been ch...
State Vs. Kishori Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3114
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21.7.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bansur Distt. Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned trial court') in Criminal Case No. 109/93 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C.2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under:Complainant Tija Devi widow of Puranchand (PW. 1) submitted a written report before the Police Station Bansur Distt. Alwar (Ex. P. 2) on 29.9.1993, in which she has stated that accused respondent was the Patwari in Teshildar Office after drinking liquor had going to her house and inside her house using unparliamentary language. She had further stated in his report that previously also the accused-responding repeated the same offence and she also previously complained to Teshildar.3. Upon the said information the police registered an F.I.R. No. 74/83 under Section 354 IPC and started investi...
Kailash and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3462
Guman Singh, J.1. All these appeals are listed for admission. Both the parties agreed that it may be heard and finally disposed of.2. Since all these appeals, arise out of the same accident and only challenge pertains to quantum of compensation and hence, the same are finally disposed of by common judgment.3. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants, for enhancement of the claim against the Awards, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Bayana (Bharatpur), vide Award dated 6.10.05.4. On 19.8.1990, the appellants and other persons were travelling in Bus No. RRD 8801, which met with an accident with Bus No. U.P.T. 4568 coming from opposite direction, as a result of which the bus fell into the river and 48 persons died in that accident and 21 persons sustained grievous as well as simple injuries. The driver of the Bus No. 8801 also died in that accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus...
Sushant Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj200; RLW2009(1)Raj119
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein seeks quashing of the impugned order Annex. 5 dated 21-5-2008 and also seeks staying of the counselling of in-service candidates scheduled to be held on 28-5-2008 and 29-5-2008 on the basis of the merit list prepared after dispensing with the negative marking.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition by the petitioner, as has been averred in the writ petition are that the petitioner completed his MBBS from M.S. Ramaih Medical College, Bangalore, in the year 2006 and appeared in Pre-Post Graduation Medical Examination, 2008 conducted by the respondent No. 2, the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur (for short, 'the university' hereinafter) on 20-1-2008 and stands in the non-service category. He has been placed in the merit at serial No. 100 and 101 vide Annex. P/2. The said examination of 2008 was conducted by the respondent N...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »