Rajasthan Court January 2010 Judgments

Balaram Vs. Lachman Through Lrs. and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. This is plaintiff-appellant's first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 23/2/1987 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 30/1984, whereby instead of granting decree for specific performance of contract, a decree for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- along with interest has been passed.2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred in the manner as they were arrayed in the plaint.3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff Balaram filed a suit against his father-in-law Lachman with the averments that defendant was a needy and therefore he sold out his land bearing khasra No. 367 measuring 1 bigha 8 biswas situated at village Bakhera, through the agreement to sell for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-, out of which Rs. 9,000/- were paid and rest amount was to be paid to the defendant at the time of execution of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar but due to increase in the...

Devi Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the five accused persons Devilal, Lalchand, Rajiram, Mohanlal, and Utama Ram arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dt. 30.1.1987 passed in Sessions Case No. 70/1985 convicting and sentencing each of the accused appellant as under:Under Section 148 IPC- Sentenced to one year's R.I. Under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC- Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to undergo three months' R.I. Under Section 27 of the Arms Act- One year's R.I. And a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo one month's R.I.2. The appeal was admitted on 9.2.1987, and thereafter, after receipt of the record, the sentence awarded to the accused persons were also ordered to be suspended.3. However, as transpires from the marginal notings of the order-sheet dt. 26.4.1999, that the appellants No. 1 and 4 Devilal and Mohanlal respectively had expired. Thus, the present appeal survives only on behalf of Lalchand, Raji Ram, and Utma...

Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway Vs. Judge, Industrial Trib ...

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant petition is directed against the award passed by Industrial Tribunal [Central], Kota dt. 17th May, 1995 [Ann. 8] whereby the alleged termination given effect to w.e.f. 1st April, 1979 was held to be arbitrary and violative of Section 25F of the Act, 1947. As a consequence whereof, workman was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service along with back wages.Respondent-workman when retrenched w.e.f. 1st April, 1979 while working as Casual Khalasi raised a dispute, which was referred by the appropriate government vide its notification dt. 11th February, 1988, is reproduced as under:Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota to retrench Shri Ram Charan w.e.f. 1.4.1979 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief workman is entitled to2. In the statement of claim submitted by respondent-workman, it was alleged that he was engaged as Casual Khalasi initially from 29th March, 1974 and had worked upto 31st October, 1975. H...

Kashi Purohit and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

R.C. Gandhi, J.1. By means of this public interest litigation petition, the petitioners seek issuance of Writ of Mandamus quashing order dated January 23, 2009, being ultra vires, non-est and bad in the eyes of law; further issuance of appropriate writ or direction declaring that the Council of Ministers, without having resolved and passed in the Legislative Assembly as contemplated under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952'), cannot appoint a Commission to investigate into any definite matter of public significance, and inconsistent with the touch stone of rules and the Law; further direction declaring that no Commission can be constituted by the newly elected Government to look into and investigate the decisions taken by the previous Council of Ministers, to wreak vengeance, being impermissible in law.2. The petitioners have averred in the petition that they do not owe allegiance to any political party and are interested in th...

Ranjeet Singh Vs. Managing Director, Sri Ganganagar Kendriya Sahakari ...

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the order dated 27.3.2000, the petitioner was held liable to pay Rs. 4,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with costs of Rs. 1000/-. The petitioner preferred appeal to challenge the said order before the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur. During pendency of the said appeal, it appears that the respondent Bank submitted a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission Consumer Protection) Rajasthan, Jaipur wherein vide order dated 12.2.2001, it was held that the amount was covered by insurance, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum commencing from three months after the date of lodging its claim by the complainant bank obviously with Consumer Forum on 16.9.1996. The complainant bank was also awarded Rs. 5,000/- as costs for litigation.3. This fact was taken not...

Rajendra Singh Vs. Labour Court and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.S.B. Civil writ petition No. 4601/20081. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 3rd June, 2008 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 151 CPC wherein the petitioner prayed for taking on record certain documents. The labour Court observed that the application should not have been filed under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC but it should have been under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC. Be it as it may be, because of the wrong title in application, the relief could not have been denied, but so far as other findings are concerned that the petitioner failed to disclose the reason for not filing the documents in time is concerned, this Court at this stage, is not inclined to entertain the writ petition to challenge the order as the petitioner shall have liberty to challenge the impugned order if award goes against him and that award may be challenged by the petitioner...

Bhopa S/O Sh. Jiya by Caste Musalman Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

C.M. Totla, J.1. Challenged is appellant's conviction and awarded sentence of five years and fine Rs. 100/- for the offence of Section 376 IPC per judgment dated 31.08.89 in Sessions Case No. 3/89 before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge Jaisalmer.2. Alleged brief facts per prosecution are that on 08.03.89, one Shri Bharat coming with his wife and two foreign national female at police station Sam informed that with them were three women foreigners - of them one who went for camel ride with Bhopa has not come back - making entry No. 89 of this information in Roznamcha Ex. P/13, Head Constable Iswar Singh PW/5 and Constable Satnam Singh proceeded for search. At around 9:15 these constables alongwith Shri Bharat and three foreign women and hotelier Prithvi Raj PW/4 arrived at P.S. and Ms V PW/2 lodged FIR Ex. P/1 which is like this:ToSHO Police Station SamDistrict Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)The camel ride started at 5.30 PM from 5 AM to sand-dunes the two camels separated and took different rou...

B.L. Rathi Vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner who was appointed on the post of LDC in the year 1959 was offered first promotion in the year 1964 and he was appointed on the post of UDC in the year 1964. On 25.1.1992, the State Government decided to give benefits to the employees who were not given the promotion in spite of good length of service of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years. As per the scheme of that grant of selection grade vide order dated 25.1.1992, the first selection grade shall be granted to the employees from the date following the day on which one completes service of 9 years, provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre. The second selection grade could have been granted from the day following the day on which one completes services of 18 years, provided that the employee has not got two promotions earlier as might to be available in his existing cadre and the first selection grade gran...

Madan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. Since common question of facts and law are involved in the aforesaid writ petitions, therefore, the facts of SBCWP No. 10596/2009 are taken for deciding this bunch of writ petition by this common order.3. According to the petitioner after due selection he was given appointment vide order dated 15th March, 1995 on the post of Constable. In the select list their name was assigned at S. No. 16 whereas the respondent Saddique Mohd. was at S. No. 20, however, while publishing the tentative seniority list dated 1.4.2009 (Annex. 3), he has been assigned the seniority No. 248 and junior to him respondent Saddique Mohd. has been given seniority No. 233. It is submitted that no objections were invited against the seniority list and final seniority list was published, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex. 4. In the said final seniority list, the petitioner has been shown junior to respondent who in fact is junior to the ...

Bhopa S/O Sh. Jiya Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2010CriLJ1339,RLW2010(1)Raj754

C.M. Totla, J.1. Challenged is appellant's conviction and awarded sentence of five years and fine Rs. 100/- for the offence of Section 376 IPC per judgment dated 31.08.89 in Sessions Case No. 3/89 before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge Jaisalmer.2. Alleged brief facts per prosecution are that on 08.03.89, one Shri Bharat coming with his wife and two foreign national female at police station Sam informed that with them were three women foreigners - of them one who went for camel ride with Bhopa has not come back - making entry No. 89 of this information in Roznamcha Ex.P/13, Head Constable Iswar Singh PW/5 and Constable Satnam Singh proceeded for search. At around 9:15 these constables alongwith Shri Bharat and three foreign women and hotelier Prithvi Raj PW/4 arrived at P.S. and Ms. V. PW/2 lodged FIR Ex.P/1 which is like this:ToSHO Police Station SamDistrict Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)The camel ride started at 5.30 PM from 5 AM to sand-dunes the two camels separated and took different rou...