Rajasthan Court May 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.
Sheesh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN291
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the relevant papers placed on record. 2. Shri Anshuman Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for release of the petitioner on second regular parole of 30 days. It is submitted that petitioner had already served 1/4th of his sentence of 5 years, 4 months and 27 days imprisonment without remission out of the total sentence of 7 years. His jail conduct was reported as satisfactory inasmuch as, the Assistant Director Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Jaipur also favourably recommended for his release. Petitioner wanted to get his release on second parole of 30 days on the ground of his undergone period of 1/4th sentence. The District Advisory Parole Committee has rejected the application of the petitioner for his second regular parole of 30 days on the basis of adverse police report. Earlier also, petitioner was granted parole for 20 days but he never ...
Omprakash Vs. Chief Electoral Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj161
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Omprakash, who in response to notification issued by the secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner applied for grant of permit. In fact, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner vide the aforesaid notification dated 4-2-2009 invited applications for grant of permit for as many as 12 different routes. This notification was issued pursuant to agreement dated 12-9-2008 between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Haryana. About 1300 applications are stated to have been received in response to the aforesaid notification for the route of Bhadra to Hisar via Adampur. Petitioner also applied for the same route. One such applicant was the intervenor Rajkumar Singh. Regional Transport Authority heard arguments on all such applications on 25-3-2009 and thereafter fixed the matter on 30-3-2009 for further hearing on which date, arguments were concluded and judgment ...
Rameshwarlal Garwa Vs. Excise Comm. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN275
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner who is facing trial in criminal case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, has been suspended by the department by order dt. 08.08.2008, hence, this writ petition has been preferred.3. According to petitioner the FIR dt. 13.12.2007 is absolutely false and a concocted story only. It is also submitted that in fact the petitioner has been exonerated in department enquiry. The copy of preliminary enquiry and copy of the enquiry report has been placed on the record as Annexure. 5 by the petitioner. It is submitted that in fact the story has been concocted which is clear from the facts mentioned in the FIR (Annexure. 3). It is also submitted that respondents-department has power to suspend the employee like the petitioner but in this case the power has been exercised without application of mind and contrary to the facts available on record and ignoring the fact that in the FIR itself, it has been ment...
Kamla Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN232
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner is wife of deceased employee Jagdish Singh Panwar who was in service of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services. The petitioner was retired on 30.09.1999 after attaining the age of superannuation. He died on 19.04.2000. The deceased employee was getting regular pension under the provision of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules 1996, and after his death his family was getting the family pension for which PPO No. 550473965 was issued.2. The petitioner, wife of the deceased employee Jagdish Singh Panwar, received the copy of order dt. 25.04.2007 by which she has been conveyed that since deceased employee un-authorizedly occupied the Government Accommodation and, therefore, she is liable to pay Rs. 34,992/- which is required to be deducted from the pensionery benefits granted to the deceased employee's wife petitioner. The copy of this order dt. 25.04.2007 as Annexure. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dt. 25.4.2007 as Annexure. 1, has preferred...
Roop Kala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN249
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganwadi worker vide order dt. 14.08.2007 (Annex. 2). She was removed on a complaint submitted to the District Collector, Hanumangarh objecting for her appointment on the ground that her real sister is already in service as Aanganwadi worker and as per the guidelines issued by the Government dt. 15.09.2003 (Annex. 1) and as per the Clause 8 of the said scheme, only one member of one family can be given appointment as Aanganwadi worker. Therefore, the petitioner, who was given appointment as Aanganwadi worker, was ineligible to be appointed on the said post.3. As per the stand taken by the respondent in reply, an enquiry was conducted wherein the petitioner admitted that her sister is also working as Aanganwadi worker. However, her contention was that she and her sister both are married and are living with their husbands in separate houses. The said contention was not accepted and,...
Surendra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2726
S.P. Pathak, J.1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the remarks passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 16/2001 in his judgment dated 4.9.2003 with the prayer to expunge the same from the order as also for quashing of the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned judgment/order.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case for disposal of this petition are that at the relevant time, petitioner was posted as S.H.O., Police Station, Mathura Gate, Bharatpur in the year 2000. During his posting as S.H.O., Police Station, Mathura Gate, Bharatpur, on a Parcha Bayan dated 15.6.2000 of one Shri Chotey Lal S/o Bhoori Singh police registered F.I.R. No. 329/2000 against accused persons for committing offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The investigation of the case was done by Shri Banwari Lal Yadav Sub Inspector. During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, i...
Lrs of Rao Jagannath Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN26
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This special appeal is directed against order dt. 18.01.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant against order dt. 03.06.1987 passed by the District Collector, Chittorgarh, has been dismissed. By the said order dt. 03.06.1987, the District Collector has refused to accept the option given by the appellant to surrender the lands held by him in excess of the ceiling area on the ground that the lands offered for surrender were not unencumbered and accordingly, the appellant has been directed to first surrender the lands in his possession which are unencumbered.2. The ceiling proceedings were commenced against the appellant under Chapter III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Begu (in short 'the SDO'). Pursuant to the notice issued by the SDO the appellant filed his return on 30.04.1964. The SDO determined the surplus lands held by the appellant as 55.4 standard acres and a...
Amarji Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3699
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This first appeal has been filed by the appellant plaintiff challenging the adjudication made by the trial Court with regard to issues No. 3 and 5 against him vide judgment dated 15.12.1986.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 38,857.31 with interest and cost against the defendant-respondent, in which, it is averred that he is doing business of mahua flowers and vide bill No. 23 dated 07.05.1981 at the rate of 155/- per quintal he purchased mahua flowers from M/s Sadguru Prasad Suresh Chander and the said goods was booked on the same day with the malgodown of the Western Railway vide RR No. 153631 dated 07.05.1981. Further, it is stated that the above-said goods was to reach Dungarpur but the goods did not reach Dungarpur, therefore, on 03.08.1981 vide registered letter the plaintiff-appellant informed about the whereabouts of the flowers but no reply was received by him. Thereafter, he served a notice under...
Prem Chandra Vs. Smt. Santosh Charan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN65
Dalip Singh, J.1. This is the husband's appeal against the judgment and decree dt. 08.08.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Dausa in divorce petition No. 1/94 filed by the respondent wife on the ground of cruelty which has been allowed by the learned District Judge and a decree for the dissolution of the marriage has been passed in favour of the respondent wife. 2. The facts in brief are that the marriage of the parties took place on 22.11.1985 and the respondent wife accompanied the appellant to her matrimonial home. As per the averments and the findings of the learned District Judge she resided at the matrimonial home but during this period the behavior of the appellant towards the respondent wife was far from satisfactory and he used to beat her and ill treat her and also that the husband appellant was habitual of drinking and for this purpose he used to often ask his wife for money and when he was not in a position to comply with the aforesaid demands the husband would beco...
Vishal Chaudhory Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN321
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. The present habeas corpus petition is directed against the order impugned dated 07.08.2008 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Collector, Jaipur, by which the accused-petitioner has been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act of 1980') for a period of one years. The said order dated 07.08.2008 has been approved by the State Government vide order impugned dated 20.08.2008.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order impugned dated 07.08.2008 passed by the District Collector, Jaipur as well as the order impugned dated 20.08.2008 whereby the detention order has been approved by the State Government, the present habeas corpus petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner on the ground that the detention order has been passed by the respondent No. 2 in mechanical manner without applying mind and before framing grounds, no enquiry was conducted.3. The impugned orders are further challenged on the ground that as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »