Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10186/2011 Deravar Singh V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Order dt:2. 7/2014 1/28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10186/2011 Deravar Singh V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Order :::2. d July, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Shreyansh Mardia for Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the petitioner. Ms.Shweta Bora, for the respondents. --- REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:1. The present petitioner Derawar Singh S/O Bhakar Singh working as Sub-Inspector of Police has preferred this writ petition claiming an out of turn promotion. against the 10% reserved vacancies for the year 2006-2007 under Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 which is enacted to reward the police personnel who perform the outstanding and extraordinary acts of courage in discharge of their duties and with their outstanding caliber in the fields like anti-dacoity or anti-smuggling or any special field of poli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7103/2014 Ramesh Chandra Lohiya V/s. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order ::: 16.10.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.N.K.Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in this matter is very short, and therefore, with the consent of the rival parties matter is heard finally at this stage. By the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 30th September, 2014 (Annex.3) passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, whereby his licence for sale of explosives bearing No.10/2007 is suspended. The Police Commissioner, while passing the order impugned, has observed that two cases under Sections 5/9B(1)(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short, 2 Act of 1884) and Section 286 of the Indian Penal Code are pending against the petitioner. From the recitals of the order, it is borne out that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7112/2014 Tahir Ali Ansari V/s. State of Rajasthan & ORS.Date of Order ::: 16.10.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.N.K.Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in this matter is very short, and therefore, with the consent of the rival parties matter is heard finally at this stage. By the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 14th August, 2014 (Annex.3) passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, whereby his licence for sale of explosives bearing No.02/2005 is suspended. The Police Commissioner, while passing the order impugned, has observed that a case under Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short, Act of 1884) and Sections 286, 336 of the Indian Penal Code is pending 2 against the petitioner. The suspension of licence was assailed by the petitioner before the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7098/2014 Satyanarayan V/s. State of Rajasthan & anr. Date of Order ::: 16.10.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.N.K.Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in this matter is very short, and therefore, with the consent of the rival parties matter is heard finally at this stage. By the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 30th September, 2014 (Annex.3) passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, whereby his licence for sale of explosives bearing No.38/1993 is suspended. The Police Commissioner, while passing the order impugned, has observed that a case under Sections 5, 9B(i) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short, Act of 1884) and Section 286 of the Indian Penal Code is pending against 2 the petitioner. From the recitals of the order, it is borne out that the Commissioner,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Abdul Hamid & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Appeal No.929/2013 against the judgment dated 28.4.2012 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.36/2010. Date of Judgment ::31. t October, 2014 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN Mr. Dhirendra Singh, for the appellants. Mr. J.P.Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor, for the State. .... BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MATHUR,J.) REPORTABLE Being questioned correctness of the judgment dated 28.4.2012 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.36/2010, this appeal is before us. By the judgment impugned learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123 Ranbir Penal Code read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 25 read with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
By Cr Misc Petition No.3560/2014, challenge is made to the order dated 29.5.2014, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, dismissing the application moved by the petitioners for declaring the proceedings taken against them as null and void ab initio so as the order dated 28.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan on criminal revision petition against the order dated 29.5.2014. A further prayer is to declare remand of accused petitioners as null and void so as the custody and they may be discharged and set at liberty. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 21.6.2014 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur (in Cr Misc Petition No.3420/2014), order dated 18.8.2014 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur (in Cr Misc Petition No.3798/2014). The challenge to the aforesaid orders have been made on the same grounds as have been urged in the main Cr Misc Petition No.3560/2014 and separa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj1
Dave, J. 1. This case comes today for determination of the appellant's application under Order 41, Rule 5, Civil P. C. The respondent had filed a suit against the appellant in the Court of the Civil Judge, Alwar for Rs. 3437/8/- on account of the loss sustained by him for alleged breach of contract committed by the appellant in refusing to take delivery of the goods. The trial Court dismissed the suit but on the plaintiff's appeal to the District Judge, Alwar, a decree for Rs. 2750/- with proportionate cost in both the Courts has been given in his favour. The defendant has, therefore, come here in second appeal and presented a petition for staying the execution of the decree pending the decision of this appeal. On 29-8-1952, notice was issued to the opposite party to show cause why the stay application be not allowed, and an ad interim order to stay the execution was passed on that date. The appellant's learned advocate wants the order to be made absolute while the respondent's learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1953Raj88
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a revision by Hansraj against the order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, refusing to stay the suit brought by Gappulal and another against him. 2. The fact giving rise to this revision are briefly these. Hans Raj was a tenant of Gappulal & Damodar. It is said that the landlords gave notice to Hansraj on 16-9-1950, determining the tenancy. Thereafter, a suit was filed by them on the 10th of September, 1951 in the court of the Civil Judge for recovery of damages for use and occupation for the period after the determination of the tenancy. Before this, however, the tenant, Hansraj, has filed a suit on 4-1-1951, for fixation of standard rent under Section 6, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereafter called the principal Act. As soon as the landlords filed their suit for damages for use and occupation, Hansraj applied to the Munsifs Court under Section 7 of the principal Act, for an order of stay of proceedings in the Civil Judge's Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj17
Bapna, J. 1. This is a second appeal in a suit for redemption. 2. One Prayagdas and his son Budhraj mortgaged a house with Hukamdas as a security for the loan of Rs. 1,500/- on Besakh Vadi 12, Smt. 1984 (17-4-1928). Prayagdas delivered possession of the property to the mortgagee and executed a lease of the same in favour of the latter at a rent of Rs. 15/- per mensem. Prayagdas had another son Deo Kishen who had died in his lifetime leaving a widow Shrimati Suraj Kanwar. Suraj Kanwar adopted Nanuram on 20-3-1929. Budhraj died leaving a widow Mst. Shanti. Hukamdas sued Prayagdas for arrears of rent and a decree was passed on 15-12-1931 against Mst. Suraj and Mst. Shanti as legal representatives of Prayagdas and in execution of that decree the house was put up for sale. Mst. Suraj Kanwar applied to the court for permission to raise money on security of the house and on such permission being granted. Suraj Kanwar mortgaged the house for Rs, 600/- to Chhotmal 9n 5-6-1934. In the meantime, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1953Raj177
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Durg Singh who has been detained under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act (No. 4) of 1950. His main contention is that the grounds supplied to him were so vague that he could not make a representation against the order. He therefore contends that he has been deprived of his personal liberty against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as he has not been afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention, granted to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.2. The grounds, that have been supplied to theapplicant, are these-(1) that it has been established that when some dacoits visited his village, he took his mealswith them in village which naturally shows that he knew the dacoits and they had come in the village at his instance, 2. that, he instigated the dacoits to enquire from one Bhera Darji about the gold 'gho-khru' 'ear-rings...
Tag this Judgment!