Rajasthan Court July 2011 Judgments
Yogesh Kumar Meena and ors. Vs. Chairman, Raj. Rajaya Vidyut Prasaran ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The petitioners who are indisputably diploma holders have approached to this Court by filing instant joint petition assailing the terms and conditions of the advertisement (Annx.1) issued by the respondent holding selection for the post of Junior Engineer-I. 2. The post of Junior Engineer-I was advertised by the respondent and the educational qualification for the post in question referred to in the advertisement (Annx.1), being relevant for the purpose, is reproduced as under :- “2. Educational qualification (as on Date of Written Competitive Examination) :- The candidate must hold a Graduation Degree in Engineering in any of the following discipline with 60% marks in aggregate or AMIE with 55% marks in aggregate from a University/ Institution established by Law in India or a Degree of a Foreign University or Institution declared by the competent authority equivalent to a Degree in Engineering as mentioned against each discipline of a University established by law in India.&r...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Mohan Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. This order governs the disposal of IVth bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Rajat Ranjan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner Radha Mohan Sharma pertaining to F.I.R. No. 27/2010 of Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur registered for the offences under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 406 IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that he was willing to repay the due amount of Rs. 9,33,30,000/- to the complainant, but the arrangement of such a huge amount was not possible unless he was released on bail by this Court. The offences, wherein the accused petitioner is alleged to have been entailed are of 409, 420, 467, 468, 120-B and 406 IPC. These offences are triable by the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the accused petitioner has been in custody since 16.12.2010. The police, after completion of investigation, h...
Tag this Judgment!Birbal Gurjar Versus Pooni Ram Meena and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 10th March, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur Mahanagar dismissed the petitioner-defendant's application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC. 2. The petitioner-defendant moved an application Under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC imploring the Court to summon the record from defendants no. 1 and 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the order dated 20.1.2011, whereby this Court allowed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1085/2010 and granted an opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. Learned counsel contended that since an opportunity was granted by this Court to lead evidence, as such the record ought to have been summoned, but the learned trial court arbitrarily rejected his application. Hence, the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set-aside. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner an...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the trial Court, whereby charges have been ordered to be framed against the petitioner of the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against his wife Smt. Kanta and after receipt of notice of the suit, the present report was filed by her against him, therefore, allegations alleged in the report are absolutely false and after thought, therefore, the trial Court has committed an illegality in framing charges against the petitioner on the basis of false allegations. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and contents of charge-sheet, which has also been filed along with the revision petition and from perusal of the charge-sheet, it is clear that there is sufficient evidence on record t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramniwas Vs. Smt. Seema
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that applicant/respondent Smt. Seema filed an application in the trial Court under Section 12 of the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') along with an application for interim maintenance under Section 23(2) of the Act. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.01.2010, allowed the application and directed that she will be entitled to get Rs. 1,500/- per month towards interim maintenance. Being aggrieved with the same, petitioner filed an appeal but the same has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge(Fast Track), Mahwa, District Dausa vide judgment and order dated 04.03.2011. Hence, the petitioner has now preferred this revision petition. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that income of the petitioner is only Rs.2,500/- per month, therefore, both the Courts below committed an illegality in awarding i...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhan Lal Mishra and ors Vs. Nagar Palika Mandal ors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 28th March, 2011, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 1, Behror, District Alwar dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that the learned trial court dismissed the application observing that the evidence of the plaintiff had already been recorded and the case was fixed for recording the defendants' evidence and there was not even a single shred of evidence that the document-in-question was related to the disputed property. Learned trial court, having analyzed the matter in detail, rightly dismissed the application. 3. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to upset the pure findings of fact. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court is expected and require...
Tag this Judgment!Shivcharan Sharma and Another Vs. the Additional Civil Judge (Jd) and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 5th August, 2010, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Sikar, dismissed the petitioners-defendants' application filed under Section 45 and 73 of Evidence Act. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents, the petitioners-defendants moved an application imploring the court to send the disputed Will to Forensic Science Laboratory stating the same to be forged one. The learned trial court after considering the rival submissions made by the parties dismissed the application filed under Sections 45 and 73 of Evidence Act on the ground that with regard to the disputed Will no legal proceedings are found to have been initiated by the petitioners-defendants. It is further observed by the learned trial court t...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Parashar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the trial Court rejecting their application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for deleting, by way of amendment, charge framed against them under Section 304/34 IPC. 3. It is relevant to mention that earlier petitioners filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.229/2011 before this Court against the order dated 10.02.2011, whereby trial Court framed charges against the petitioners under Section 304, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. This Court dismissed the revision petition, however, a liberty was granted to move an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, therefore, an application was filed by the petitioners under Section 216 Cr.P.C., which has been dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2011, which is impugned in this revision petition. 4. I have considered the sub...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Singh and anr Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The matter has come up for orders on fifth application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Mayank Chobisa @ Pintu, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellant did not press the application and submitted that she is not challenging the order of conviction of appellant passed by trial court in view of overwhelming prosecution evidence including statement of prosecutrix in the case and her only prayer is to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of appellant awarded by the trial court under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC from ten years rigorous imprisonment, to a reasonable period, which this Court thinks fit and proper, as appellant has already undergone five years, ten months and twenty five days imprisonment, till now. Similarly, learned counsel for appellant Vikram Singh (criminal appeal No.1127/05) also submitted that he is also not challenging the order of conviction of appellant in view of statement of prosecutrix and his prayer is also to reduce the se...
Tag this Judgment!Daulatram and Others Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners, namely Daulatram, Amar Singh, Ramswaroop, Jaidev and Mohar Singh were convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Weir, District Bharatpur, vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 424/2007, under Section 147, 323, 341, 336 and 504 IPC. They preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by learned appellate court, i.e. Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bayana, vide judgment and order dated 01.07.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2009. Their conviction and sentence under Sections 336 and 341 IPC were set aside, but their conviction under Sections 323, 147 and 504 IPC, passed by trial court was affirmed. However, sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court were set aside and they were given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958(for short 'the Act of 1958'). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »