Rajasthan Court April 2009 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.
Bhagirath Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN186
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The plaintiff/appellant Bhagirath is aggrieved against the judgment dt. 24.05.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer allowing the second appeal preferred by defendant/respondent Bana Ram. The Board of Revenue dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration of khatedari rights of the plaintiff and eviction of the defendant.3. We perused the reasons given by the Courts below and we need not to refer the facts in detail as the learned Single Judge and the Board of Revenue, both were of the view that there is no merit in the suit of the plaintiff. The Board of Revenue has considered various aspects and some of the facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that as per the appellant himself, the defendant trespassed over the land in question in Samwat year 2017 (corresponding year 1960); the land was declared Siwai Chak i.e. Government land in Samwat Year 2020 (corresponding year 1963); the ...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Jeewa Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN133
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant State is aggrieved against the judgment dt. 19.9.1996 of this Court delivered by the Single Bench in writ petition No. 2875/87 filed by the respondent.3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner after obtaining a license from the mining department excavated the mineral and manufactured the bricks from the land of khasra No. 261 situated in Village Tawab and as per the appellant, 80000 bricks from the said earth and clay were manufactured. Since the said excavation was with the permission of the competent mining department, therefore, the bricks were belonging to the writ petitioner. The Naib Tehsildar, Bhinmal issued a notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 to the petitioner treating the petitioner to be a trespasser over the Government land. The Tehsildar after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed the order on 19.10.1987 and held that even if there was lice...
Rajendra Kumar Bhola Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN126
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order impugned dt. 27.09.2001 (Annexure-16) passed by His Excellency the Governor rejecting the petitioner's review petition filed against the order dt. 10.08.1998 as time barred, so also the order passed by Chief Engineer, Ground Water Department, Jodhpur dt. 10.08.1998 (Annexure-9) whereby the petitioner was removed from service.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Technical Assistant in the Ground Water Department after due selection through R.P.S.C. And he joined the duties on 22.08.1985. Initially the petitioner was posted at Jodhpur and worked till April, 1986 then he was transferred to Kota Division at Kota. He worked independently as Geo-Physist for Electrical Resistivity Survey in four districts i.e. Kota, Jhalawar, Sawai Madhopur and Tonk to explore point of tube well for water supply scheme. In the year 1987, the petitioner became eligible for pro...
Managing Committee, Panabai Ramnath Poddar Senior Secondary School Vs. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj402
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Respondent No. 4- the concerned employee was appointed as a Teacher in the appellant institution on 19.7.1951. Though he stood retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 4.7.1992, however, as per the terms of contract and relevant rules, he was given further extension of two years and finally retired on 4.7.1994. In the meanwhile, the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and the Rules made thereunder namely; The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant In Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules of 1993 came into force on 1.4.1993. ,2. Having denied the benefit of Gratuity, the concerned employee approached the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal for claim of the Gratuity. The appeal of the concerned employee was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.1998 thereby directing the appellant to make payment of Gratuity to the concerned employee as per provisions of Payment of Gratuity ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shivratan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2700
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The state of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.6.1998 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Kota (for short 'the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 81/1997, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 120B, 420, 468, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(2)(d)(2) Anti Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988').2. Brief facts of the case are that the Additional superintendent of Police, State Anti Corruption Bureau, Bharatpur submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bharatpur against Teekam Chand Jain, Executive Engineer, Irrigation' Division, Bharatpur, Shivratan Singh Dhankar, Assistant Engineer, Dharampal Jain, Junior Engineer and Hari Prakash Mistri, Irrigation Division, Bayana District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Act o...
Shiva Corporation India Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2582
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction for quashing award of contract to respondent No. 3 and further that the same may be awarded to it. In the alternative, the respondents may be directed to invite fresh bids.2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner company is a limited company involved in the business of collecting royalty, sales tax, excavation and other construction related projects which the company undertakes in various parts of the country including moving heavy earth and development of construction sites as per the orders received. The petitioner company is also registered with the Registrar of the companies and is registered as A Class contractor with the Addl. Director, Mines, Udaipur Zone, Udaipur. The company has five Directors viz., Meghraj Singh, Asu Singh, Hari Singh, Manvendra Singh and Ashok Chandak.3. Respondent No. 2 invited tenders for two jobs at Mohangarh group of mines for the works to be carried out at the...
Ganesh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2940
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Since the controversy involved in both the criminal appeals arise out of common facts and same judgment, hence same are being decided together by this common judgment.2. Both the criminal appeals have been filed by the accused appellants under Section 374. Cr. P.C. by which they have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27-8-2002 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Court, Jhalawar (for short 'the trial Court') passed in Sessions Case No. 12/2002 by which the trial Court convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act for a period of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to both the criminal appeals are that complainant Mr. Chetany Kumar Sharma, SHO, P.S. Jhalawar received a mukhbir information that the accused appellants have blue colour bag and they have illegal...
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran (Prasaran) Nigam Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sheo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN7
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellants-non-petitioners in SBCWP No. 2063/2003 are aggrieved against the judgment of the Single Bench dt. 26.08.2008 by which the writ petition of the respondent-petitioner was allowed and the order Annex-9 dt. 27.05.2003 was quashed and it has been held that petitioner is entitled to receive pension and other retiral benefits as per his option. The respondents were directed to grant the pensionary benefit to the petitioner with effect from the date of the retirement in accordance with law and pay the arrears of pension within a period of three months from the date of submission of the certified copy of the order passed by the Single Bench.3. As per the facts, the pension scheme was formulated and employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board who were members of the CPF were given opportunity to opt for pension scheme and for that not only once but number of times, notices were issued by the respondent-department ...
Sohani Devi Lodha (Smt.) Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN234
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment dt. 19.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner's case is not covered under the scheme (Annex.3) issued in pursuance of the RBI circular dt. 03.09.2005 to give benefits of one time settlement to the small and medium enterprises accounts holders. The learned Single Bench has observed that petitioner's case is not covered under the scheme because the scheme was issued subsequently by the RBI and subsequent to passing of the judgment and decree against the petitioner by the civil Court.3. According to learned Counsel for the appellant the appellant to take benefit under the scheme (Annex.3) applied before the respondent-bank by moving application (Annex.1) wherein the petitioner very clearly stated that the loan was taken and a recovery suit was filed by the respondent-bank and in that suit the decree was passe...
Banshi Lal and anr. Vs. Lrs of Late Shri Tulsi Ram Dangi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN58
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.2. The appellants are aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dt. 27.03.2008 by which the writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed.3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs Banshi Lal and Hangami Lal-appellants filed one suit for declaration and injunction seeking declaration that they may be declared to be Khatedar-tenants of the agricultural land as they become Khatedar-tenants of the said land by virtue of the Will dt. 29.06.1996. They sought relief of injunction that any compensation of land acquisition proceedings may not be given to the respondent No. 1. The relevant facts are that for the land in question a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 21.02.1990 and it was published in the Gazette on 04.06.1992. Several awards dt. 12.02.1996, 19.02.1997, 14.02.1996, 09.04.1996 and 08.02.1996 were passed. The land stands acquired. The acquisition wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »