Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(2)WLN23
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2nd March, 1979, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 89/1974 (59/1971).2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner of Plot No. F-170, situated in Ashok Nagar Gautam Marg, Jaipur. On this plot, there is a building having ten rooms, six on the ground floor and four on the first floor. There is also a garage attached to the building. This building was leased out to Smt. Radha Kumari for the purpose of running a school on on 15th August, 1960, on a monthly rent of Rs. 240/-. A suit was filed against Smt. Radha Kumari for eviction in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 15th February, 1968. The defendant contested the suit and contended that with effect from 1st April, 1965, she was no more a tenant and the tenant is respondent No. 4, Rastriya Vidya Niketan Sikshan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN465
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 29-6-1977 (Annexure-1) passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur, by which it was held that Zila Parishad is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (here in after referred to as the Act of 1947'), and that the termination of the non petitioner No. 1 was improper, unjustified and illegal, being violative of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, and therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages.2. The writ petition was admitted on 25-9-1978, but the State application filed along with the writ petition was rejected, and therefore the impugned Award dated 29-6-1977 has been implemented, and the non-petitioner No. 1 was taken back in service.3. Since the writ petition involves an important question as to whether Zila Parishad is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947, a general notice was also issued to the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(4)WLC345; 2001(1)WLN191
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, an educational trust claiming for the following reliefs:I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 1.8.2000 (Annex. * 16) and 3.8.2000 (Annex. 17) be declared illegal and be quashed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner.II. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, it may be declared that the Jain community falls in the religious minority in the State of Rajasthan and is entitled to exercise its right conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution of India.III. by an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to grant admission to BDS Course from Academic Session 2000-1 against 50% management quota in exercise of its rights as an institution run by religious minority and the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the exercise of rights of the petitioner in the matter of admission so far as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(2002)DMC637; 2001(3)WLC769; 2002(2)WLN409
Sharma, J.1. Whoever saw her shedding tears, whoever heard her sighs, a grief-struck young lady Smt. Rakesh lost her life on a fateful day of October 2, 1992. According to her husband Ramni Singh, she was killed by Nirbhay, Nekram and their companions whereas her father Goliram says that it was a dowry death and Smt. Rakesh was murdered by her husband Ramni Singh and his near relatives. Let us find out the truth.2. As many as 13 accused persons including the appellants Nirbhay and Nekram were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions judge No. 2 Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1994. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated February 14, 1996 acquitted co-accused Ram Swaroop, Kare, Jagdish Prasad, Chandu, Niranjan, Nemi, Kanchan, Veerpaloa, Hari Ram, Dauli and Kamar Sen. The appellants Nirbhay and Nekram were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under-Nirbhayu/Sec. 302 IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in defaultto further undergo six months H.I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN713
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged by means of this writ petition the order passed by the Principal, Government College, Banner dated June 30, 1972 dismissing the petitioner from Government service.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially employed as a class IV employee in the office of the Collector, Barmer on November 4, 1966. The service of the petitioner was subsequently transferred on his own request to the Government College, Barmer, by the order of the Collector, Barmer dated March 7, 1976. Later on, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of class IV employee by order dated May 5, 1568 with effect from March, 1, 1965. While the petitioner was working as class IV employee at the Government College, Banner, a complaint was received against him to the effect that he suppressing the information that be was apprehended at Luni Railway Junction for carrying opium on March 11, 1960 and in that case he was convicted by the Court of the Railwa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2007Raj244; RLW2007(4)Raj3247
J.M. Panchal, C.J.1. By filing this public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU, for short) dated July 04, 2005 executed between the Government of Rajasthan and M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, for setting up Special Economic Zone (SEZ, for short) on a land admeasuring 3000 acres situated near Mahfnura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. The petitioner has further prayed to set aside the decision dated September 5, 2005 of the Government of Rajasthan by which the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA, for short) as granted approval to transfer the land admeasuring 161.23 hectares to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited (RDICO, for short) for the purpose of setting up SEZ. The petition has also prayed to set aside Lease Deed dated September 26, 2006 executed by JDA in favour of RIICO for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985WLN(UC)500
Kanta Bhatanagar, J.1. Appeallant Tejaram was tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC by the Sessions Judge. Sirohi. By the judgment dated 20th April, 1985. he was held guilty for that offence and death sentence was passed. The learned Sessions Judge submitted the proceedings to this Court under Section 366 Cr. PC for confirmation of the death sentence. Appellant Tejaram felt aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and preferred appeal in this Court. As the death reference and the appeal filed by Tejaram arise out of the same judgment, we propose to dispose both of them by a common judgment.2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case giving rise to the trial of the appellant, his conviction and sentence and the reference by the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal by Tejaram are as under ;3. On 8-6-1983 at about 8.30 A.M. Nathmal (PW 9) Sarpanch Panchayat Varada lodged report at police station Barloot before SHO Jafar Ali PW 16 to the effect that Teja Ram armed with 'Pharsi' (axe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1978Raj112; 1978(11)WLN66
ORDERM.L. Jain, J. 1. The facts of this writ petition are that upon the merger of the erstwhile Jadon State of Karauli, private properties settlement took place between the ex-Ruler on the one hand and the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan on the other. The Kailadevi temple was included in the Inventory of private properties at item No. 20 with the decision of the Home Ministry that 'the temple will be managed as a trust, His Highness will be the sole trustee.' The Government of India impressed upon the Ruler to execute a trust deed and after prolonged deliberations the Ruler of Karauli executed a trust deed on 21st December 1961 and had it registered. Along with the trust-deed he attached two lists of properties, one of the ornaments and other movable properties, and the other comprised the immovable properties of Kailadevi Trust. Along with the trust deed the Ruler attached a ferro-typed map of the immovable properties showing the boundaries of the trust premises. This t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1982WLN151
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Mr. Purohit was at his best as he usually is with the remarkable marshalling of facts and conspicous ability, lucidity and splendid feats of legal oratory. His only regret was that there was none to challenge him. A 'walk over' could never be relished by a 'gem' amongst Advocates and is too dangerous for a just decision.2. This is an appeal is against the judgment of the Special Criminal case No. 40 of 1974 dated March 25, 1976 of the Special Judge for A.C.B. cases Rajasthan Jaipur, by which, appellant Mahendra Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 161 IPC and two years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.3 The prosecution case is that Mahendra Singh was an Audit I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN645
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction, order or writ in the nature of certiorari and prohibition to bring up and quash the order of reversion dated August 10, 1978, passed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short the Board) in respect of the petitioner and to restrain the Board from giving effect to the impugned order. The impugned order which is Annexure 4 to the petition is in these terms:Shri R.K. Kulshrestha who is continuing against the temporary post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis is hereby reverted to the post of Asstt. Engineer with immediate effect.On reversion as Asstt. Engineer, services of Shri R.K. Kulshrestha are placed at the disposal of the Chief Engineer (Const. & Gen.), RSEB, Jaipur.By order,sd/-(Harish Nayyer)Secretary2. The case of the petitioner as set out in his petition may be briefly stated here. The petitioner joined service of the Board as a Junior Engineer on June 2, 1959. He was p...
Tag this Judgment!