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.
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Smt. Champa
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN101
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The respondent was granted relief as prayed by the respondent- widow of employee whose dismissal order was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dt. 30th April, 1997 and appeal against the said judgment before the Division Bench was dismissed and even the Hon'ble Apex Court has already dismissed the special leave to appeal. The consequential benefits have been granted to the widow of the deceased employee by the learned Single Judge after careful consideration of the entire facts and after examining the relevant provisions and after observing that to give complete effect to the judgment, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court it is necessary to grant all consequential benefits to the widow.3. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of constructive res judicata or any bar of law.4. In...
Gupta Textiles Holesale Cloth Merchant and anr. Vs. Raj. Spinning and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN293
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the orders impugned.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the accused petitioners have a valid defence and therefore, considering the defence, the accused petitioners deserve to be discharged for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter).3. From the perusal of the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) dt. 18.3.2005 it appears that on a complaint filed by respondent complainant under Section 138 of the Act, the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence and issued the process. On appearance of the accused before the trial Court, the accused moved an application under Section 245 (2) and 259 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him on the ground of certain defences agitated therein. The trial Court prima facie came to the conclusion that there is ground to...
Birdhi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2569
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 29.9.1086 rendered by District Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, whereby he convicted the accused appellants Birdhi, Kana, Nanda, Kalu, Dhanna, Babulal, Ram Gopal, Kallu, Prem Narain, Panchu Lal, Nathulal, Jagannath, Bhura and Bheron lal in the offences under Sections 147, 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced as under:Under Section 147 of IPC:One year Rigorous Imprisonment to each of the accused-appellants.Under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149:Three years Rigorous Imprisonment to each of the accused-appellants and a fine of Rs. 50/- to each of them; and in default of payment of fine each to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC:Two years Rigorous Imprisonment to each of the accused-appellants.Under Section 324 read with Section 149 of IPC:Six months Rigorous Imprisonment to each of the accused-appellants.Under Section 323 read with...
Aditya Pratap Singh Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3318
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. In all these writ petitions, a common question has been raised pertaining to Rajasthan Pre-P.G. Medical/Dental Examination-2009 and looking to the urgency shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and as agreed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the matter was heard finally.2. The petitioners appeared in the Rajasthan Pre-P.G. Medical/Dental Examination-2009. In the question paper of this examination, one question was pertaining to the registration of death and it was asked whether it is to done within 5 days, 7 days, 14 days or 21 days. All the petitioners attempted that question and answered it to be 21 days. For ready reference, the question is quoted hereunder:Q. Registration of death is done with in(a) 5 days (b)7 days(c) 14 days(d) 21 days3. After completion of the entrance examination, the respondents published the key answer book giving '(b) 7 days' to be correct answer of the aforesaid question. The petitioners immediately made a representati...
Santosh Kumar Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3487
Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Chhabara, District Baran in Civil Appeal No. 05/2005 confirming the judgment and decree dated 15/9/2005 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chhabara, District Baran in Civil Suit No. 26/1999 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was authorized by District Supply Officer, Baran to supply wheat to the students of village gram panchayat Bahari and Mundla under the Rashtriya Poshahar Scheme. He was also directed to supply 3 kg. wheat every month for every student; that he supplied the food grains as per the terms and conditions laid down in the rules; that all the commodities supplied by him were always entered in the separate register and kept for that purpose village wise; that the information ab...
Hariman Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3681
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Hariman, against the order dated January 24, 2002 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gangapur City in Sessions Case No. 88 of 2001 whereby accused respondent Nemi Lal @ Nemichand was acquitted form offence under Sections 397, 394, 325, 324/34 and 323/34 1PC. And Section 145 of Indian Railways Act, 1989 and accused-respondent Lohare Lal was acquitted from the offence under Sections 397, 394, 325, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC and Section 145 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989.,2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant petitioner Hariman got his parcha bayan (Ex.P/1) recorded in the Hospital at Gangapur where he was undergoing treatment. In the said parcha bayan it was, inter alia stated that on Feb. 8, 2001 at about 1.30 p.m. the informant had come from Gangapur City after selling milk. As soon as he alighted from the train at the Railway Platform of village Khandeep, accused-respondents Nemi Lal and ...
Ramjilal and Vijendra Singh Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4224
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The petitioner Ramjilal, filed the S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 428 of 2009, against the order dated January 30, 2009 of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Sikar Camp Neem Ka Thana in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2009 whereby he convicted the accused respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 3/8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and sentenced him to suffer three years RI and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer one month SI, for enhancement of sentence and the appellant filed the S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2009 for setting aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing him as mentioned above. Since both the revision petition and the appeal relate to one incident, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Brief facts of the case are that on August 12, 2008 at 10.00 a.m. a written report was prepared that Bijen...
Jagdish Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2459
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. The matter was heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. The petitioner was elected as 'Sarpanch' of Gram Panchayat, Lisadia of Panchayat Samiti Sri Madhopur, District Sikar. He was served with the charge sheet, to take action as per Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994'). In the charge sheet, it was alleged that he raised construction of Panchayat Building in a land recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Naid', thus proper place was not selected and it may cause damage to the record and building. Respondents conducted enquiry as per the Rule 22 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the rules of 1996'). The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted enquiry report vides Annex. 11 to the writ petition dated 22.04.2008, holding charges as not proved. After recording said finding in the enquiry, it seems that matter travelled to other government authorities and in that respect, firstly order was passed on 20th October 2008 v...
LaldIn Vs. Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN173
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, award Annex. 3 dt. 21.12.2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 Labour Court, Jodhpur (for short 'the labour Court' hereinafter) has been challenged by the petitioner workman.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the labour Court fell in error in passing no dispute award. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Pappu Ram v. The Labour Court, Jodhpur and Ors. 2005 (3) WLC 616, wherein the Division Bench held that a Tribunal cannot answer reference made by appropriate Govt. under Section 10(1)(c) in the name of no industrial dispute award. The reference proceedings does not abate even on the death of workman what to talk of absence of workman. It was obligatory on a Labour Court or a Tribunal to answer a reference made under Section 10(1)(c) on merit after proper adjudicatio...
Dhara Singh Vs. Fateh Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj132; RLW2009(3)Raj2010
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff Dhara Singh against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dismissing his suit for specific performance on 16.12.2000.2. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit No. 30/1991 against the three defendant - brothers Fateh Singh, Chhabek Singh and Hardeep Singh in respect of agreement to sell 9 bighas of land agreements being dated 9.2.1985 and 15.12.1985 for sale of total 9 bighas of land situated at 16 GB Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar for consideration of Rs. 74,250/- mentioned in the agreement dtd. 9.2.1985 against which the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of agreement and some amount later and a total sum of Rs. 66,450/- was paid to the defendants.3. The suit was contested by the defendants except one of the brothers Chhabek Singh who filed written statement in favour of the plaintiff.4. That the trial Court has framed as many as 12 issues and while deciding all other issues in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »