Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on : Dec-15-2015
..... in dealing with the election petition cannot be revised by the high court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. definition of persona designata as laid down in central talkies case (supra) is not applicable to the authority appointed to her the election petition under the act 1994 and the rules 1994. in narain dutt versus ibrahim (supra) this court ..... sc) 232 (2) sadhu singh versus darshan singh & anr., (2006) 6 scc255(3) jayanta samal versus kulamandi behera & anr., (2004) 13 scc552(4) gursewak singh versus avtar singh & ors., (2006) 4 scc542in sohan lal (supra).the supreme court, while considering section 122 of the m.p.panchayat raj avam gram swaraj adhiniyam, 1993, has held that a returning officer has no power to ..... as also the high court lost sight of the parameters to be applied while considering the petition seeking re-counting of votes. it is manifest from the afore- extracted paragraph 4 of the election petition, containing the grounds of challenge, the allegations regarding irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes were not only vague, even the basic material facts ..... was declared elected and the entire counting process was carried out by the returning officer impartially and dispassionately. the allegation of the forth respondent that against counting of votes, any 4 objection was submitted on his behalf for recounting is also countered by the petitioner. the petitioner has submitted in the returnm that entire election petition is based on vague, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on : Dec-17-2015
..... does not change the position that if the officer concerned is not suspended during the period of enquiry, complications of the kind already indicated would definitely arise. we are, therefore, reluctant to hold that an order of dismissal passed by an appropriate authority and kept on its file without communicating ..... was posted at jammu & kasmir. while he was working at j&k, he was prosecuted and eventually convicted for an offence punishable under section 376 of the act and was accordingly awarded 5 years rigorous imprisonment by the competent court at j&k on 10.3.1993. this sentence was confirmed by ..... of rajasthan & ors.v.m/s.swaika properties & anr.: (1985) 3 scc217and oil & natural gas commission v. utpal kumar basu & ors.: (1994) 4 scc711 held as under:- (9).the two decisions of the hon ble supreme court, discussed above, do not overrule the decision of this court in prem cables ..... at 22nd bn, ssb, ranidanga, darjeeling (west bengal).the inquiry was also held at darjeeling (west bengal) and penalty order dated 18.08.2010 (annex.-4) was also served on the petitioner when he was working at ranidanga, darjeeling (west bengal) and the appellate order was passed by the dy. inspector general ..... for the respondents. ---- by the court: this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 18.08.2010 (annex.-4).whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed on the petitioner and appellate order dated 18.05.2011 (annex.-6).whereby appeal filed by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on : Dec-18-2015
..... court in this regard while passing the order dated 9.9.2015 are perfectly justified. however, it is equally true that the accused was definitely entitled to entertain a reasonable expectation that the documents would be produced on the record by the investigating agency which was 15 still making an ..... could possibly be material for deciding the age of victim and which the trial court has already allowed to be proved under objection, are definitely relevant to the controvers.prevailing before the trial court. the accused was justified in 10 entertaining a hope that the documents would be collected ..... along with the final charge-sheet. in this background, the accused petitioner was left with no option but to move the application before the trial court under section 91 cr.p.c.for summoning the original documents. they relied on the following judgments :- (i) birad mal singhvi. versus anand purohit reported in ..... the learned sessions judge, jodhpur district, jodhpur in sessions case no.152/2013 whereby, the application preferred on his behalf in the trial court under section 91 2 cr.p.c.for summoning certain documents, was rejected. the petitioner is facing trial in the court of learned sessions judge, jodhpur district ..... , jodhpur for the offences under sections 342, 376(2)(f).376d, 354a, 370(4).506, 509/34, 109 and 120-b i.p.c., sections 23 and 26 of the juvenile justice act and sections 5(f)(g)/6 and 7/8 of the pocso act. the trial is presently proceeding at the stage .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on : Dec-18-2015
..... court in this regard while passing the order dated 9.9.2015 are perfectly justified. however, it is equally true that the accused was definitely entitled to entertain a reasonable expectation that the documents would be produced on the record by the investigating agency which was still making an endeavor to ..... could possibly be material for deciding the age of victim and which the trial court has already allowed to be proved under objection, are definitely relevant to the controversy prevailing before the trial court. the accused was justified in entertaining a hope that the documents would be collected and ..... along with the final charge-sheet. in this background, the accused petitioner was left with no option but to move the application before the trial court under section 91 cr.p.c. for summoning the original documents. they relied on the following judgments :- (i) birad mal singhvi. vs. anand purohit reported in ..... urged that the prosecution proposed to collect and file most of the documents which the accused sought to summon by way of the application preferred under section 91 cr.p.c. before the trial court. it was contended that the documents were not suiting the prosecution and, therefore, while filing the ..... jodhpur district, jodhpur for the offences under sections 342, 376(2)(f), 376d, 354a, 370(4), 506, 509/34, 109 and 120-b i.p.c., sections 23 and 26 of the juvenile justice act and sections 5(f)(g)/6 and 7/8 of the pocso act. the trial is presently proceeding at the stage .....
Tag this Judgment!