Rajasthan Court July 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.
Babu Lal Vaishnav Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj414
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the learned Tribunal') on an application moved by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). By the impugned order dated 16.2.1999, learned Tribunal dismissed application of the petitioner.2. The petitioner-employee moved an application before the learned Tribunal under the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act of 1947. The application was maintained on the ground that petitioner's services were terminated without seeking approval under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. The facts relevant to the matter as stated before the teamed Tribunal are otherwise referred hereunder for convenience.3. The petitioner stated that pursuant to the selection, he was appointed on the post of Conductor vide order dated 6.5.1987. The order of appointment was containing certain terms and c...
Hajari Vishnu Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN377
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the reversion order dt. 31.08.2006 (Annex.P/8 passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mount Abu and the order dt. 19.06.2006 (Annex.P/9) passed by the Dy. Director (Administration), Local Bodies, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. In this case, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector when he was working on the post of U.D.C. vide order dt. 18.09.1992 (Annex.P/2). The said order was purely on temporary basis till confirmation by the D.P.C. The said promotion order was declared illegal and thereafter, the petitioner was ordered to be reverted from the post of Revenue Inspector to the post of U.D.C. vide order dt. 17.09.1993, issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mount Abu on the basis of the order issued by the Dy. Director, Local Bodies, Jodhpur dt. 25.08.1993. The petitioner challenged the order dt. 17.09.1993 by way of filing revision under Section 3...
Dinesh Chand Sharma Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2408
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed at the instance of Dinesh Chand Sharma, who retired on 28.2.97 from the services of the respondents as Senior Deputy District Education Officer. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short-The Tribunal) inter alia on the premise that period of his services rendered from 28.8.1963 to 30.6.1964 has wrongly been ignored as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension and instead the respondents are proceeded to finalise the pension case treating his services from 1.7.1964 to 28.2.1997, this ignored the period of 10 months and 4 days. The petitioner also additionally claimed that he was promoted to the post of Sr. Deputy District Education Officer and joined as such in the Directorate of Secondary Education, Bikaner on 28.2.1997. He was according to Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Services Rules (for short the RSR) entitled to benefit of additional increment to the lower as w...
Raja Ram @ Raju and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3495
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Trifle dispute over cakes of cow-dung resulted in death of Ram Nath. Cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to laceration of spleen and fractures of 8th, 9th and 10th ribs. The appellants, eight in number, were put to trial for having committed murder of Ram Nath before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 1, Bundi, who vide judgment dated April 24,2003 convicted and sentenced them as under:Raja Ram @ Raju, Ratnya @ Ram Ratan, Dhan Raj, Arjun @ Urjan, Mohan, Sheo Karan, Harnath and Ram Nivas:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for ten days.Under Section 325/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fif...
Adhikshak (Abhiyojan) Kendriya Utpad Vs. Damodar Singh Rajpurohit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(235)ELT37(Raj); RLW2008(4)Raj3710
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred to challenge the order of Revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur) dated 4.10.2004 by which the revision petition against the order of Special Court (Economic Offences), Jodhpur dated 12.7.2001 was dismissed.3. The facts in brief are that a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act of 1962') was submitted in the Special Court (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur which was transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur. In the complaint, the petitioner and one Raskhan were arrayed as accused. As per the prosecution case, on 1.3.1992 in the night, the officers of the customs department intercepted one Fiat car at about 5:15 AM (in the morning of 2.3.1992) and they tried to stop the vehicle, then instead of stopping the vehicle, the driver increased the speed...
Gautam Chand Mehta Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN351
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to allow him commutation value at 10.78% as per table appended with the Rules of 1996 and the arrears of the commutation along with interest @ 18% per annum. Further, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow the interest at the rate of 18% on the amount of gratuity from the date of his superannuation.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer in the Office of Collector, Jalore vide order dt. 24.01.1958. Thereafter while working as Office Superintendent Grade-I, he was appointed as Officiating Tehsildar under Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service Rules, 1956 vide order dt. 04.08.1979. Thereafter on the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee under Rule 29(A)(4) of the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service Rules, 1956, the petitioner was appointed as Tehsildar on substantive ba...
Mohammed Yaseen Vs. Smt. Jareena Banu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj128
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr. P.C. by the non-petitioner wife. The petitioner and nonpetitioner are Muslim and, therefore, are governed by Muslim Law. They are governed by the provisions under Section 125 Cr. P.C. to limited extent also.3. The non-petitioner submitted the first application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara on 14.1.2002 and prayed for maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month. The said petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. being Criminal Original Case No. 32/2002 was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 31.10.2002 whereby maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month from the date of application was awarded for non-petitioner's son till he attains majority. However, the non-petitioner-wife's maintenance application was allowed to the extent that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 1000/- per month to the non-petit...
Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwara Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3490
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This is a classic case of haphazard investigation. It is clearly a matter of great concern that the Investigating Officer did not become alive to the situation and implicate an innocent person Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwara (appellant herein), who was ultimately put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 1, Jhunjhunu. Learned Judge vide judgment dated June 20, 2004 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 201 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. As per the prosecution story Natthu Khan (since deceased) and Mahaveer Chamar were close friends. On July 8, 2002 at 11 PM Bhanwara son of Mahaveer Chamar came to the house of Natthu Khan and asked...
Hari Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3858
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is an Appeal arising out of a judgment dated 26-9-1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City Camp Hindaun in Sessions Case No. 99/83 whereby he has convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 307 and 324/34, IPC and sentenced him to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 307, IPC sentenced him to undergo for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one, month. All the substantive sentences to run concurrently.2. The brief facts of the case are that Jaggan P.W. 4 submitted a written report Ex. P.4 to the SHO Police Station Todabheem in which he stated as under:(Vernacular matter omitted..... Ed.)3. Upon this report, the police registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324 a...
Mahadev Prasad Through His Legal Representatives Vs. Mansa Ram and anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3590
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Admit.2. Heard learned-counsel for the parties.3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that non petitioner No. 1 - Mansa Ram filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Debt Relief Act, 1957 in the trial court against petitioner Mahadev Prasad as well as Mangala Ram. The trial court' presumed the service of the application on the petitioner as sufficient and passed an ex-pate order and ultimately an ex-parte decree was passed under Section 6 of the Act vide order dated 7th October, 1995. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex-parte decree in April, 1996. The trial court dismissed the application vide its order dated 2nd April, 1998 on the ground that the petitioner had knowledge about pendency of application under Section 6 of the Act. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred but the same was also dismissed. Hence this revision petition before this Court.4. The learned Counsel for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »