Rajasthan Court July 2010 Judgments
Surender Singh. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. This is an unusual case in which the role that has been played by the police cannot be appreciated. Mst.Veero Kaur, wife of the accused-petitioner committed suicide on 16.3.2010 at her in-law's place in village Bhojpur of Bharatpur district. Her family members arrived at the place of her in-laws on that very day. A written application signed by real uncle of the deceased, her father having already died, and co-signed by her brother, her maternal uncle, her cousins, both from maternal and paternal side, and several other villagers was submitted to SHO, Police Station Gopalgarh that she died natural death and that they did not want any action in the matter. SHO made an entry in the Rojnamcha Aam at S.No.530 at 1.05 PM on 17.3.2010 to the effect that since both parties did not want postmortem of the dead body as this was a case of natural death and they had no doubt about the death having taken place in natural course, the matter was closed and dead body of Mst.Veero Kaur was allowed t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and anr. Vs. Dr. Govind Sharma ...
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. These two appeals have been preferred both by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences as well as the State of Rajasthan against the interim order dated 23/07/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. A writ petition came to be filed before the learned Single Judge being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8752/2010 by the four petitioners, who had appeared for Pre-DM/M.CH. Examination, 2010 conducted by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences on 22nd July, 2010. Challenging the quota of 30% of the seats for in-service candidates. 2. The last date for submission of the application form was 12/07/2010 and the examination was notified for 22/07/2010. Annexure-4 was the notification issued by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences which provided the instructions and the Scheme and criteria for the examination and consequent admissions in pursuance of the said entrance examination. The said Scheme [Annexure-4] which is available at Page No.71 of the Paper Book in Para 3 provided for rese...
Tag this Judgment!Godaram Yadav. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) (2008(2) WLC 406) clarifying the position ad infra: 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 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 6500-10500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years.2. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on them. But those...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kamla Devi @ Lali. Vs. Sohan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2010 and by interlocutory orders passed during the trial dated 13.12.2007 and 23.02.2010, the appellant has filed this Civil First Appeal. It is the case of the appellant that she is a bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute as she had purchased the property through a registered sale-deed dated 26.12.1985 from the erstwhile owner, Mr. Bhartendra Singh through his father and power of attorney holder Mr. Thakur Janak Singh. It is further her case is that while she had gone on pilgrimage between 27.12.1985 to 05.01.1986, defendant No.1, Sohan Lal, had forcefully entered into her property and have taken over its possession.2. She further claims that Sohan Lal had instituted a suit for declaring the sale-deed dated 26.12.2985 as void and for permanent injunction against the appellant. However, the said suit was dismissed, vide judgment dated 02.04.1986. In the present suit, notice was served on defendant No.1, Sohan Lal. However, he...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanand Singh. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner Gajanand against the order dated 13.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur city District Sawai Madhopur whereby he refused to take cognizance against the accused-respondents for the offence under sections 323, 452, 427 and 379 IPC and that of the order dated 18.4.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gangapur city whereby the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner has been rejected and the impugned order dated 13.3.2002 has been confirmed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a written report was submitted in the police station Gangapur city on 7.12.1999 by Gajanand Singh son of Jay Singh alleging therein that on 7.12.1999 in the morning at about 8.00 a.m., the accused-respondents Mool Singh, Ravindra Singh @ Fodal Singh, Dharam Singh and Bhupendra Singh entered in his house and gave beating to his so...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bhan SharmA. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) (2008(2) WLC 406) clarifying the position ad infra: 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 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 6500-10500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years.2. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on them. But those...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash. Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1. Both the appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 18.12.1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, Camp Behrod, in Sessions Case No. 46/1980, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 05.06.1980 an oral report was lodged by Rajpal (PW1) at Police Station Mandhan, District Alwar, which was entered at S.No. 134 in Roznamcha (Ex.P12). It was alleged in the report that he is the resident of Mauza Basai Bhopal Singh. On 04.06.1980 at about 10.00 PM, his Uncle Omprakash asked as to who had removed the stones, then he told that they have removed as they belong to them and they have also won the case. Thereafter Omprakash told that he had given the same to Ramkumar. Omprakash and Ramkumar were standing near the wall of his Uncle and his Bhabhi (Sister-in-law) Rajbala, his mother Gindori, his Grandmother Sharwan and his Aunt Kaushalya started quarreling. His mother Gindori was beaten by...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Singh. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. This D.B. Criminal appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3rd January, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar in Sessions Case No.32/2002 (41/2002) whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Under section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.2. Under section 4/25 of the Arms Act two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Both the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.1.2002, Kailash Chand Soni (PW-1) submitted a written report at the spot to Sardar Singh (PW-11), SHO police station Kotwali, investigating officer of the case. In the above written report it was, inter-alia, stated that his younger brother's son Rajend...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Meghwal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel.2. By this petition, Annex.5 order passed by the Commissioner, EGS of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department of the State Government has been challenged. By the said order, the Commissioner inter alia prescribed that the eligibility qualification for the post of Assistant Accountant/Accounts Assistant for employment in the Schemes framed under the provisions of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act would be B.Com./C.A. (Inter)/ICWA (Inter)/CS (Inter).3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners holding B.A. degree were appointed as Accounts Assistant under the agreement dtd.2.7.2009 (Annex.3) for the period of one year which expired on 30.6.2010. She submitted that during the course of petitioners' employment vide Annx.5 which apparently does not bear a date, but from the side margin of the said order from endorsement the date 29.9.2009 and 30.9.2009 can be seen, the respondents could not change...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel.2. By Annex.2, candidature of the petitioner in the selection process of Prabodhak was rejected on the ground vide item No. 8 in the impugned order that he does not hold the prescribed qualification of BSTC.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he the same on 5.7.2009. The interview for selection on the post of Prabodhak were first held, according to the petitioner in para 5, on 19.2.2010 and again on 29.6.2010. The petitioner further stated in para 5 that 'the petitioner acquired the qualification of BSTC at the time of interview and therefore, he was eligible to be considered for the post of Prabodhak. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar and Anr. reported in : 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 611 submitted that the qualification on the date of interview should be taken into account by the respondent - authorities as it was co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »