Rajasthan Court March 2009 Judgments
Chel Singh Vs. M.G.B. GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1312
Govind Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk, working with the respondent Bank was served with a memorandum dated 5.10:1991 seeking explanation for certain charges of misconduct. The memorandum was supported by a statement of allegations, according to that:(1) a contravention of regulation 17 of the Marwar Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 1980') occurred as the petitioner intentionally failed to observe, comply with and obey orders and directions given to him time to time;(2) the petitioner violated regulation 22(1) of the Regulations of 1980 by remaining absent from duties from 11.12.1989 to 24.10.1990 without having sanction from the competent authority;(3) a violation of regulation 22(2) of the Regulations of 1980 occurred as the petitioner remained absent from duties without having any reason beyond his control;(4) a violation of regulation 52(1) of the Regulations of 1980 occurred as the petitioner claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanta Sharma (Smt.) Vs. Tulsi Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2654
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant, wife of the respondent, being aggrieved against the ex parte divorce decree dated 25.5.2005, has preferred this appeal to challenge said ex parte decree.3. Brief facts of the case are that according to the respondent-husband of the appellant, appellant's and respondent's marriage took place 15 years before the filing of the divorce petition by the respondent before the court of District Judge, Bhilwara in the year 2002. Out of the wedlock, one son Vinod and one daughter Deepa born to them. At the time of the filing of the divorce petition, the age of Vinod was 12 years and the age of Deepa was 8 years. The respondent-applicant submitted that the appellant and respondent and their children were surviving on the income of respondent's father Bhairu Lal. The respondent is an innocent person and is not in position to do anything. The appellant left the respondent about four years ago and started living at Bhuwana i...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Kishan Gaur and anr. Vs. U.i.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2629
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order passed by respondent No. 3 Urban Improvement Trust dated 28.12.2007 (Annex.-9) and notice dated 11.06.2008 (Annex.-11), issued in pursuance thereof.2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 Bal Kishan Gaur was allotted plot No. B-4, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur by the U.I.T., upon which, petitioner No. 1 constructed residential house and he is residing there. Petitioner No. 2 is daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 1 and she is doctor being possessed of M.B.B.S. and MS. (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) degrees. Son of petitioner No. 1 is not party in this writ petition. He is also doctor and he is in the government service. The said plot allotted by the U.I.T. is regulated under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (Urban Area & Building) Bylaws, 2001 (in short, hereinafter to be called 'the By-laws').3. The petitioners have opened a medical clinic in the said house and petitioner No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Leeladhar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj604
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27th January, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mangrol, District Baran, in Criminal Case No. 34/2009, arising out of FIR No. 137/2008 and Final Report No. 48/2008, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused-petitioners for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and issued non-bailable warrant.3. In short, the brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 (Mohammad Siddiqui) submitted a complaint before the trial Court against the petitioners for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The trial Court sent the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Police Station, Mangrol, District Baran for registering the First Information Report and for investigation. The Police Station, Mangrol registered the F.I.R. No. 13...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4362; 2009(3)WLN9
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This case is classic example of gross abuse of process of the Court as well as flagrant miscarriage of justice. The proceedings before the learned Magistrate concerned, for doing justice to the victim, had rather added to his miseries.2. The brief and relevant facts of this case are that an application was filed by the petitioner, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu praying that by passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. direction be issued to the police to register a case at Police Station, Chirawa for the offence under Sections 379, 447/147 and 188 IPC and Section 3(v)(x) and Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.3. The petitioner had filed a report to the police with the averments that in the town of Chirawa, he had purchased a plot and was in possession of the same. The petitioner further averred that the said purchase was by way of an agreement executed on 11.07.2008 with one Chatar Singh so...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN211
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial Court dt. 13.02.2009 whereby the trial Court allowed the applicant's-resopndent's application for being impleaded as party.3. There is no need to give more details fact other than the facts which are substantially not in dispute that the applicant is claiming that the industrial plot was allotted to him by the RIICO as back as on 03.01.1977 and a lease deed was registered in his favour on 12.09.1979. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit before 1982 against the RIICO only wherein the applicant submitted application for being impleaded as party, which was allowed by the trial Court. That suit of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court and ultimately by the High Court, the second appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed.4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the present plaintiff-petitioner also filed a suit for declaration whe...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Lal Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ689Raj
Govind Mathur, J.1. The Labour Court, Udaipur by its award dated February 29, 1984 answered reference made to it by the appropriate government on January 7, 1983 by holding removal of the petitioner from service w.e.f. May 15, 1982 illegal. Accordingly, a direction was given for his reinstatement in service with all back wages. A petition for writ giving challenge to the award aforesaid also came to be rejected by single Bench of this Court on December 6, 1985. A special appeal preferred by the employer giving challenge to the judgment dated December 6, 1985 also came to be rejected on December 12, 1986. However, Supreme Court by its order dated August 29, 1996 modified the award dated February 29, 1984 only to the extent of the quantum of back-wages. The respondent-employer has already reinstated the workman and also paid a sum of Rs. 96,078/- against 50% of back-wages and certain other dues of the petitioner.2. By this petition for writ claim of the petitioner is that the amount paid...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Singh Vs. J.V.V.N.L. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3411
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.8.1994 (Annexure/3) by which the petitioner was going to be retired on 30.6.1995 on attaining the superannuation age of 58 years.3. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that in the check form filled on 20.4.1978 wherein his age has been shown as 24 years without referring the date of birth and year of birth, therefore, the month ought to have been taken as per amended Regulation 4(D)(3)(Ex.R/5). According to which, if the year of birth is know but the month is not known then the month has to be taken as July of the respective year and as regard the year the same is to be calculated from the age i.e. 24 years mentioned in check form dated 20.4.1978 but without determining the age as per the amended regulation dated 3.8.1990. The petitioner has been retired although he will retire as per the check form, the calculation on 30.6.2001.4. The...
Tag this Judgment!Surajratan Vs. Harikishan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN177
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for injunction alleging that the property in question measuring 3600 square feet belongs to him by virtue of sale deed executed in his favour as back as in the year 1994. Out of this property, some open piece of land was given by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 for use only on license basis. The defendant became hostile to the interest of the plaintiff. Therefore, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff sought injunction against the respondents. The respondents' contention is only that they are in possession of the property and living in the house adjoining to the land in dispute. The land in dispute is measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft. The respondents applied for regularisation of the said plot falling between two houses over which the petitioner is claiming his title. The Commissioner was appointed who reported that if the dispute property is added in the area of...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Singh Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN4
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 06.07.1994 passed by the Additional Collector whereby a reference was made to the Board of Revenue with regard to mutation which was opened in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 28.04.1995 whereby the reference was allowed and the mutation made in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the land was directed to be mutated in the name of Mandir Shri Madangopalji Maharaj Virajman Moja Bahrawali.2. The brief facts of the case are that the land situated in village Bahrawali, Tehsil Roopbas, District Bharatpur bearing Khasra Nos. 142, 156, 163, 140, 159, 160, 161, 246, 245, 157, 158, 162 and 163 were shown as a 'muafi land' of Pandit Gordhan Singh as far back as Samvat Year 1978-79. However, in the year 1945, the said land was shown in the revenue record, in the name of Mandir Gopalji Maharaj and in the name of petitioner's father, Prabhu, as 'Ghair Morusidar Pat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »