Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: rajasthan jodhpur Page 3 of about 2,877 results (0.161 seconds)

May 14 2015 (HC)

CIMMCO Birla Ltd., Bharatpur Vs. Mahendra Singh and Others

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Instant intra-court appeal has been preferred against order of the ld.Single Judge dt.15.01.2014 affirming the award of the ld.Labour Court dt.01.04.2004 and upholding the finding that retrenchment of the respondent-workman was in violation of Sec.25-F of the Act, 1947. The ld.Labour Court, Bharatpur while holding that termination was in violation of Sec.25-F of the Act, 1947 directed that the workman shall be entitled for reinstatement and continuity in service along with all consequential benefit including salary but when the writ petition came to be preferred by the present appellant, the ld.Single Judge confirmed the finding of fact as regards violation of Sec.25-F of the Act, 1947, however, looking to the fact that the respondent-workman served as a Driver for the period from April, 1986 to January, 1988 and much water has flown thereafter and in these facts and circumstances, considered it appropriate that in lieu of reinstatement, he may be awarded a lump-sum amount of compensat...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 2015 (HC)

Soorajmal @ Suryabhan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.4.2004 rendered by the additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2004 whereby, the accused appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 447 and 302 IPC and has been sentenced as under: For offence under Section 447 IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of L500 and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. For offence under Section 302 IPC: Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of L1,000 and in default thereof to undergo imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that Bhanaram (PW1) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) at Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar on 21.8.2003 with the contention that he is resident of Dudwa Tehsil Laxmangarh. His younger brother Ramdeva Ram and his son Hoshiyar Singh used to sleep in the agriculture fields. In the night, some body murdered Ramdeva Ram and nephew Hoshi...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 2015 (HC)

Bhanwar Lal Mundra and Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Sunil Ambwani, C.J. 1. The petitioners are residents of Mundron Ka Bas, Gram Panchayat Napasar District Bikaner. By this petition, they have prayed for a direction to declare the Notification dated 18.9.2009 issued by the State Government as illegal and to quash the same with consequential directions, by which the Notification dated 6.10.2008 issued by the State Government under the authority of the Governor of Rajasthan declaring the Gram Panchayat Napasar as Municipality (Nagar Palika) Class IV, was withdrawn in exercise of the powers under section 3(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Ordinance, 2008, which was later-on enacted as the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. The petitioners have also prayed for direction to hold elections for Municipal Board, Napasar and not to hold elections for Gram Panchayat, Napasar. 2. The interim relief application for staying the elections was rejected on 17.1.2005 on the ground that the elections were notified on 24.12.2014. 3. The Napasar is s...

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2015 (HC)

Rajmal Jain Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Sunil Ambwani, C.J. 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners having valid licenses for `barrel point' sale of diesel in the respective districts of the State of Rajasthan, for the period upto 2016 and 2017 (for two years from the date of issue or renewal), have challenged the order passed by the Additional Food Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Rajasthan dated 19.12.2014, as well as the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 (for short, "the Central Order of 2005") issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas on 19th December, 2005 under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the consequential actions, by which their licenses have been cancelled during the period of their validity. The petitioners have also prayed for declaration of clauses 2(d) and 3(4) of the Central Order of 2005, as unconstitution...

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2015 (HC)

Rajasthan State Road Trans Corpn. Vs. Manna Ram Kumawat and Others

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

By the Court: 1. The two appeals above noted are directed against the same award and judgment dated 30th January, 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Essential Commodity Act), Jaipur, in claim case No.202/2004, (Manna Ram Kumawat Vs. RSRTC and ors.), and therefore, have been taken up for adjudication by this common judgment and order. 2. Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. On 24th December, 2001 at about 4.00 PM, while the deceased Lal Chand Kumawat, was traveling in Jeep No. RJ-14-1C-0347, died of an accident, as the Jeep was hit by Bus No. RJ-09-P-1678 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', for short). The claimants lodged a claim petition for loss of bread winner of the family. The Corporation filed his counter to the claim petition denying the contents of the claim petition and the claim as well. On the basis of pleaded facts of the claim p...

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2015 (HC)

Mahesh Chand Vs. Judicial Officer and Others

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

1. This writ petition has been preferred by plaintiff assailing the order dated 16.2.2012, whereby the Gram Nyayalaya, Gangapur City has declined to accept the sale deed dated 15.7.1992 produced by the petitioner in his suit on the premise that the same is un-registered and unstamped and, therefore, not admissible. Petitioner filed the suit for declaration and injunction on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed asserting that he purchased plot nos.54, 61, 38 and 76 from Shafi Mohammed, Rais Mohammed, Zamila and Gafoor Mohammed for sale consideration of L 15,000 and was simultaneously put in possession of the plots. The defendants-Babu Lal and Pramod Kumar were trying to forcibly dispossess him and take possession of the land of the aforesaid plots so as to start construction thereupon. The defendants contested the suit denying the allegations. The learned trial court framed five Issues. The plaintiff during trial submitted in support of his case filed his affidavit in evidence. When the...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2015 (HC)

Kundan Singh Vs. Gokul and Others

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

This appeal has been filed by the claimant appellant against the judgment passed by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13-1-2008 Alsatian Dog G.S.D., brown coloured, aged about 3 years, when going with his master, near Government school at about 7.00 a.m. for opening the Milk Dairy, no sooner did they reach on the road in Jalam Singh Ka Bas, suddenly a pick up Jeep No. R. J. 14 GA 9766, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the dog at a fast motion, as a result of which the dog sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. The s claimant filed a claim petition under Section s 166/140 of MV Act before the Tribunal. Thereafter notices were issued; reply was filed certain issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment dated 21-11-2008 dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been filed by the claimant. 4. Learned counsel for ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2015 (HC)

Ashok Khetoliya Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Ajit Singh, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of notification dated 12.8.2014 (Annexure-1), issued by the respondents whereby Gram Panchayat Roopbas, District Bharatpur, has been declared as Municipal Board. 2. The petitioner is resident of village Roopbas and is also an Ex-Sarpanch of that village. According to him, notification dated 12.8.2014 declaring Gram Panchayat Roopbas as Municipal Board is illegal because the same has been issued in utter violation of Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution. The Advocate General on the other hand has strongly defended the validity of notification. 3. The sole question which calls for our consideration is whether notification dated 12.8.2014 (Annexure-1) declaring Gram Panchayat Roopbas as Municipal Board is legal and valid. 4. Part IXA including Article 243Q was inserted into the Constitution by seventy-fourth amendment with effect from 1.6.1993. This Article mandates every State to constitute a Municipality for a tran...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2015 (HC)

Sarita and Another Vs. Munni Devi

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

By this criminal misc petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 14.10.2014, passed on the application under section 391 CrPC. The application aforesaid was dismissed as not found maintainable to produce documentary evidence at the appellate stage. Learned counsel for petitioners has referred certain judgments, wherein, it is held that documentary as well as oral evidence can be allowed under section 391 CrPC. In view of above, prayer is made to set aside the impugned order and allow the application. Learned counsel for non-petitioner submits that section 391 CrPC applies only for oral evidence and not for documentary. He has referred judgment of this court in the case of Jugal Kishore versus Roshan Lal , [1999 CrLR(Raj)203]. The prayer is made to dismiss the petition as application under section 391 CrPC is not maintainable to lead documentary evidence. Various paras of the judgment in the case of Jugal Kishore (supra) were referred to show as to why section 391 CrPC is not appl...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2015 (HC)

Surendra Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 16.12.2014, whereby, application submitted by the petitioner under section 306 Cr.P.C. for pardon was dismissed as was filed without first making a request to the prosecution to examine the petitioner as their witness. 2. It is stated that dismissal of the application is not proper. The court should have first sent it to the prosecution for their comments and thereupon to decide the application. The court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that before filing it, prosecution was not requested to produce accused-applicant as their witness. The court failed to consider scope of section 306 Cr.P.C. while passing the order, thus impugned order may be quashed with a direction to the court below to accept the application. To appreciate the scope of section 306 Cr.P.C., this court requested Mr. Mahendra Singh, learned Advocate to assist the court. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Singh refer...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //