Rajasthan Court April 2010 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.
Roop NaraIn Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Petitioner, as alleged in writ petition, was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III. On completion of requisite period of service, he was granted benefit of selection scale of Rs. 6500-10500. However, later on, vide notification dated 08.06.2001 which was given retrospective effect from 01.07.1998, his pay scale was reduced and recovery of excess amount has also been ordered to be made.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that controversy raised in instant petition has been decided by judgment of Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 208/06 along with 41 other connected appeals, State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Raniwas Porwal 2008 (2) WLC 406, on 13.12.2007. Relevant part of judgment supra reads as under:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.19...
Shri Balaji Marbles Mines Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 8.1.2010 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner Firm against the order dated 14.6.2007 passed by Superintending Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur while observing that the Superintending Mining Engineer, Udaipur has rightly declared the order dated 19.7.2006 as null and void because Mining Engineer has passed the order dated 19.7.2006 without obtaining prior approval from Directorate.2. In the writ petition filed by the appellant petitioner, it was contended that by order dated 19.7.2006, the Mining Engineer sanctioned the area of 4 hectares in favor of the petitioner firm by allowing extension of 15038.66 sq. yards to be included in the existing quarry No. 241. The appellant firm deposited entire amount for the purpose of allotment of said mining and final demarcation was also conducted by the Department on 24.8...
J.P. Dadhich Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
1. On 25.3.2010, we had passed a detailed order taking note of the fact that about seventy persons lost their lives in previous Gujjar reservation agitation apart from serious damage to public as well as private properties. The Court passed the order to ensure that such type of happenings are not repeated, therefore, the Government was expected to take all necessary measures.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that despite aforesaid order, roads have been blocked at various places resulting diversions of traffic causing great inconvenience to public at large. Public order is not being maintained properly by the Government. Learned Counsel further submits that in the light of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in a suo moto petition No. 16687/2007, the Government may be directed to constitute a Committee to look into all aspects including grievances raised by the agitating Gujjar community to defuse the situation. The Government may further be directed to take all necessary me...
Mohd. Asif and (7) ors. and Shalvi Gupta and (2) ors. Vs. Raj. Tech. U ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Both the petitions involving identical issue were heard together at joint request of parties and are being decided by common order.2. CWP-2335/2009 was jointly filed by nine petitioners but Sunil Yadav withdrew his name from the array of petitioners, which was deleted; and now there remains only eight petitioners who are students of MBA on being admitted for academic session-2008-09 against 15% management quota in respondent-5 (Institute of Engineering & Technology, Alwar).3. At the same time, CWP-2336/2009 has been jointly filed by three petitioners who took admission in MBA against management quota in respondent-5 (Alwar Institute of Engineering & Technology). However, their common grievance is that despite being eligible for seeking admission to MBA in academic session 2008-09, respondent University took technical plea that since institutions failed to send their respective forms on or before due date fixed, as per last counselling having taken place on 19/11/2008...
Sukh Dev Vs. Prakash Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The issue involved in these appeals is whether intracourt appeal lies against the order passed of the nature in writ jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge of this Court ?2. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 32/2010, the writ petition was labelled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11796/2009. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after taking note of the fact that by impugned order of the trial court dated 12.10.2009, the trial court directed defendant-petitioner for discovery of documents under Order 11 Rule 14, CPC as according to the plaintiff, those documents were in possession of the defendant. This rejection of the writ petition of the writ petitioner is under challenge in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 32/2010. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner prayed that the impugned order of the trial court 12.10...
Smt. Gopi Shukla Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Petitioner, as alleged in writ petition, was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III. On completion of requisite period of service, she was granted benefit of selection scale of Rs. 6500-10500. However, later on, vide notification dated 08.06.2001 which was given retrospective effect from 01.07.1998, her pay scale was reduced and recovery of excess amount has also been ordered to be made.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that controversy raised in instant petition has been decided by judgment of Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 208/06 along with 41 other connected appeals, State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Raniwas Porwal, {2008 (2) WLC 406}, on 13.12.2007. Relevant part of judgment supra reads as under:4. However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after...
Chandra Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
Govind Mathur, J.1. By the judgment dated 27.11.2003 learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Uadipur convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302, 379/34, 323 IPC and 4/25 Indian Arms Act. The accused appellant on conviction as above for offence under Section 302 IPC was sentenced to undergo life term of imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. For the offences punishable under Section 379/34 and 323 IPC the accused appellant was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and six months rigorous imprisonment respectively. For the offence punishable under Section 4/25 Indian Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-and, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment in the event of default in making payment of fine.2. As per prosecution an information was received at police stati...
indra Mal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.09.1993 as passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 4/1992 (Old No. 192/1983) whereby the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 25.08.1983 as passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No. 555/1976 convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act of 1954') and sentencing him to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-with stipulation of further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months in default of payment of fine.2. The accused-petitioner was charged of the offence aforesaid on the accusation that on 28.07.1976 at about 8:00 a.m., the Food Inspector, Ramdhan (PW-1) purchased 660 ml. of milk from the petitioner; and upon analysis, its sample was found adulterated for the reason of 'c...
Babulal, Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
C.M. Totla, J.1. Appellants (i) Ram Chandra @ Chandra Ram s/o. Magni Ram in appeal No. 416/05, (ii) Babulal s/o. Prabhu Ram in appeal No. 621/05 and (iii) Bhaga Ram s/o. Magna Ram & (iv) Pukh Raj sons of Manga Ram in appeal No. 714/05, have challenged their conviction and sentence for the offence of (a) Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC life imprisonment with fine Rs. 5,000/-, failing to pay three years imprisonment, (b) Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC life imprisonment with fine Rs. 3,000/-, in default two years, (c) Section 364 IPC five years rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs. 2,000/-, in default one year, (d) Section 454 IPC one year rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 500/-, in default one month, (e) Section 201 IPC three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 1,000/-, in default on year, (f) Section 148 IPC one year simple imprisonment, (g) Section 323 one month simple imprisonment, (h) Section 341 IPC one month simple imprisonment, recorded and directed vide judgmen...
Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Court Tonk, whereby, the learned Judge has framed charges for offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC and for offence under Section 3(1) (10)(14) of SC/ST Act.2. According to the petitioner-accused, who has appeared in person, he has been falsely implicated in a criminal case. According to him, he and one Shyam Sunder, Advocate, are having a series of litigation over a land belonging to a temple. In order to falsely implicate him in a criminal case, the entire case has been cooked up against him. The petitioner has contended that although, the police station is only half a kilometer away, yet there is a delay in lodging of the FIR. According to the complainant, the incident occurred at 11:00 AM, yet the FIR was not lodged till 7:30 PM. This inordinate delay has not been explained by the complainant. Moreover, there are contradiction between the statements of various eyewitnesses...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »