Rajasthan Court April 2010 Judgments

Banne Singh Vs. Additional Civil Judge and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1645

R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 15-2-2010, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & Judicial Magistrate First Class, No. 1, Jaipur City Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 234/2009, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to re-open the evidence of petitioner-plaintiff, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.2. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, he filed an affidavit on 22-9-2009. After filing of the affidavit due to his illness, the plaintiff could not attend the trial court on 27-11-2009. Thus, the case was adjourned to 6-1-2010. However, on 6-1-2010 also due to some personal work again the plaintiff could not remain present in the court. Although the time was sought on behalf of the plaintiff, but the learned Magistrate closed the evidence of plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved an application for re-opening of his evidence. However, vide order dated 15-2-2010 the said application was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.3. Mr. O.P. Mishra, ...

Shri Megh Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition was filed by petitioner Megh Singh way back in the year 1997 with prayer that action of respondents of removing him from service be declared illegal and order of removal be quashed and set-aside.2. It is contended that appointment of petitioner was made on account of fact that petitioner's father late Shri Shiv Singh died in February, 1993 while in service of respondent as Manager Ibrahimpur Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited, Panchayat Samiti, Roopwas, District Bharatpur. After death of his father, petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground as his dependent. Respondent Society on that basis resolved to appoint petitioner and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur, by his order dated 05.06.1993, approved the said appointment. It is contended that removal of petitioner made on alleged ground that he made respondent Society to suffer loss, is wholly unfounded. If the petitioner was sought to be removed on the ground of...

Ram NaraIn Raigar and anr. Vs. the Principal, Govt. College and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

1. By this appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 07.07.2000 whereby the writ petition was partly allowed.2. The writ petition was filed to challenge the award wherein the order of termination dated 31.05.1989 was quashed. The learned Labour Court passed award of reinstatement with 50% back wages for the intervening period.3. By the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2000, the award was modified to the extent of awarding back wages so as the other benefits. Pursuant to the order dated 07.07.2000, the benefit of wages was awarded w.e.f. 17.05.1999 i.e. the date of passing of award. The benefits of past service and back wages were denied.4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that pursuant to the termination order dated 31st May, 1989, the appellants herein raised a dispute which was then referred to the learned Labour Court in the year 1992. The termination was found to be illegal, thus as a consequence of which the appellants were entitled to full back wages. The learned Labo...

Matunda Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Ramnarayan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

1. By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 2.4.2009 whereby writ petition filed by non-appellant was accepted.2. Non-appellant was employed on the post of Assistant Manager. His services were terminated vide order dated 26.2.1979. The order of termination was initially challenged by maintaining a civil suit, which was dismissed followed by dismissal of appeal holding that remedy under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 exists. Non-appellant herein then maintained a writ petition.3. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that civil suit was dismissed on the ground that a under Section 75 of the Act of 1965 exists thus learned Single Judge should not have entertained the writ petition ignoring aforesaid. It was a matter pertaining to cooperative society thus on termination of non-appellant's services, remedy of Arbitration was available.4. The pendency of the writ petition for a period of fourteen years does not mean that even if alternative r...

Goverdhan Lal Gayari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

ORDER1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the judgment dated 15th September 2006 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 16/2005 with Misc. Application No. 03/2005.2. As per contention of the petitioner-applicant, he was given temporary charge of EDMC post in post office situated in village Semal, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand on 06.06.2001 upon which he continued to discharge his duties and subsequently an order dated 6th January 2003 came to be passed by which the persons who had been engaged without approval of the competent authority were ordered to be terminated from service with immediate effect.3. The petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 357/03 in this Court wherein an order was passed on 19th September 2003 whereby the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to to file an Original Application b...

Vinod Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Govind Mathur, J.1. By judgment dated 1.11.2003 learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali convicted accused appellant Vinod son of Kishore for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 447 Indian Penal Code and also convicted accused appellant Kishore son of Mangtu Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 447 Indian Penal Code. Both the accused were also sentenced as under:Accused Appellant Vinod:Under Section 302 IPC - Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in event of default in making payment of fine.Under Section 447 IPC - Three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and to further undergo one week's rigorous imprisonment in event of default in making payment of fine.Accused Appellant Kishore:Under Section 302/34 IPC - Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in event of default in making payment of fine.Under ...

Nirmala Devi and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel.2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged Annexure 2 Circular dated 22.01.2010 issued by Principal Secretary of Food and Civil Supplies Department of Government of Rajasthan whereby in pursuance of the Budget announcements made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State in the Budget for the year 2009-10, the State Principal Secretary has laid down certain guidelines for allotment of fair price shops.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.P. Choudhary submits that license was given to the petitioners under the Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 1976 vide Annexure 1 by the District Collector (supplies) Sriganganagar vide No. 747/2008 for the area of Gram Panchayat Dhaba Jhallar, Tehsil Suratgarh and similar licenses were given to other two petitioners also, whereas by the impugned Circular Annexure 2 dated 22.01.2010 the State Principal Secretary vide Clause 2 of the said ci...

Nathu @ Nathu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Govind Mathur, J.1. By the judgment dated 22.05.2003, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur convicted the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 325 IPC, and sentenced him for life term with a fine of Rs. 100/-and further to undergone one month rigorous imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. For commission of offence under Section 325 IPC, the accused appellant is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-and further to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 12.09.02 at about 6 PM, statement of one Nathu lal Meghwal (Ex.D/2) was drawn wherein, he stated that at about 5 PM, his son-in-law gave certain knife blows to Smt. Sakku Bai, aged 32 years. Smt. Sakku Bai was married with accused Nathu about 15 years earlier and since marriage, he was ill-treating...

Prakash Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1662

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant petition has been filed seeking emergent parole under Rule 10-A of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release On Parole Rules, 1958 on the premise that the marriage of daughter of the petitioner is going to solemnized on 22/04/2010.2. Petitioner is serving 10 years' RI in Central Jail, Kota on being convicted by learned Addl. Sess. Judge Ramganj Mandi (Kota) vide judgment dt. 10/09/2008 in Sess. Case No. 6/2005 for offences Under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act -against which he preferred SB Cr. Appeal pending before the High Court. As alleged in the petition, application was submitted through Superintendent of Jail, Kota to the Inspecter General of Prisons, seeking emergent parole on the ground of marriage of his daughter being solemnized on 22/04/2010. But when respondents failed to pass order of his release on parole as sought for in his application, he has rushed to this Court by way of instant petition.3. Notices were issued to the respondents on 30/03/2010. Public Prose...

Anil Kumar @ Iqbal @ Shyam Sunder and Kapil Madan Vs. State of Rajasth ...

Court: Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, dated 30.09.2003, passed by the Special Judge (Counterfeit Currency Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. The learned Judge has convicted the appellants, Anil Kumar and Kapil Madan for offences under Sections 489B read with Section 120B and 489C IPC. For offence under Section 489B read with Section 120B IPC, he has sentenced them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, and has imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default thereof to further undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 489C IPC, he has sentenced them to two years of rigorous imprisonment and had imposed a fine of Rs. 3,500/-, and in default thereof to further undergo for one month of rigorous imprisonment. The learned Judge has acquitted the co-accused, Jai Gopal for offence under Section 489B read with Section 120B IPC. Although, he has convicted him for offence under Section 489...