CRLAD / 232 / 2019 (MAHENDRA SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/09/2021 The appeal was preferred by the victim praying for a direction to convert the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the respondents accused by the trial court into capital punishment. The appeal was found to be not maintainable while relying on the proviso of Sec. 372 Cr.P.C. wherein victim has been given 3 specific circumstances excluding the right to question the judgment of a criminal court on the count of inadequacy of sentence. Appeal dismissed.
2
WRW / 25 / 2019 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS RAMGOPAL VERMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/09/2021 The respondents filed writs praying, benefits accruing to Government servant under RCS(Pension)Rules,1996,be extended to Non-Govt.Aided Educational Institutions-Services be counted for pensions and other retiral benefits-Held-Order under review declaring Rule 5(ix),Rules2010 unconstitutional & holding employees appointed against sanctioned/aided posts prior RCS(Contributory Pension)Rules,2005 in aided institutions and appointed/absorbed under Rule,2010 be governed by RCS,1996, is recalled
3
CW / 2682 / 2021 (BHAGIRATH RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/09/2021 Petitioner indirectly challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondents-Praying the proceedings to be kept in abeyance until criminal proceedings culminates-Held-Proceedings to be kept on hold-will be impracticable for the department to reach a finding because in a bid to prove the delinquency, the department will have to summon witnesses who are also witnesses to the trial-Petition disposed of
4
SAC / 2 / 2021 (JASPREET KAUR VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/09/2021 Intracourt appeals had been preferred against the common judgment of the SB of the same Court. The question put forth was that whether intracourt appeal would be maintainable from the judgment of same court passed in similar appeal. Held-decision of the DB of same Court affirming the maintainability of such an appeal was held to be per incuriam on the grounds that another decision of the same Court by DB on the same matter had not been referred while rendering the said maintainability. Dismissed
5
CRLW / 41 / 2021 (OM PRAKASH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/09/2021 Petitioner,a life convict,assailing the decision of the Rajasthan Open Air Camp Committee, whereby, his application for sending him to Open Air Camp, was rejected-Held-Petitioner was on parole for 20 days, whereafter, he didn’t return in time and FIR was lodged-His application rejected by Committee, reason citing violation of Rule 3(c)&(d),Parole Rules-Rejection of application just and as per law-Petition Dismissed
1
CW / 10544 / 2021 (MAHAVEER INTERNATIONAL APEX VS MAHAVEER INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2021 On completion of lease period, landlord (Respondent) issued notice, requiring tenant (Petitioner) to hand over possession-Petitioner did not give possession-Respondent filed application u/s 18,Rent Control Act-Petitioner contended eviction notice not u/s 9,the Act-Tribunal ordered in favor of Respondent-Held-Civil Courts to deal with any matter, case or dispute between petitioner and respondent is required to be tried and decided by the Rent Tribunal only-Petition Dismissed
2
CRLMP / 4998 / 2021 (RABIYA BANO WIFE OF SHRI TAUFEEQ VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/09/2021 The present petition filed under S. 482 for quashing of FIR for offences under S. 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 198, 199 & 120B IPC. The Court found that contents of the FIR do constitute commission of the mentioned offences including the offences of S. 467, 468 & 471 IPC, for which no complaint of a public servant is required under S. 195 Cr.P.C. The Court therefore found no reason to quash the said FIR. Petition dismissed.
3
SAW / 682 / 2020 (JITENDRA RATHORE S/O SHRI BHAWANI SINGH RATHORE VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/09/2021 The appellants were declared Fail in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) conducted in the recruitment process of Sub-Inspector as per service rules. This was challenged by way of writ petitions, which were dismissed. These special appeals (writ) challenges the said dismissal. Contention raised by the appellants questioning the fairness of PET. Held-No justifiable grounds provided in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellants. Appeal Dismissed.
4
CW / 9052 / 2020 (NITENDER KUMAR MEENA S/O SHRI RAM AVTAR MEENA VS RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/09/2021 The petitioner sought mandamus from the Court on the grounds that the respondents had revoked the admission nearly after one and a half year, on the basis of ineligibility of the candidacy of the petitioner. The Court found that respondents, by their overt act and conduct benefited themselves and caused loss of one year to the petitioner, therefore the petitioner is required to be compensated by the respondents. Petition disposed off.
5
CMA / 4988 / 2012 (STATE TH SECRETARY PHED AND OTHERS VS M/S GEO MILLERS AND COMPANY) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/09/2021 Work order issued to respondent for water treatment plant construction-Total value of contract fixed-Work completed-Respondents not received complete payment-High Court appointed Sole Arbitrator,who passed award in favor of Respondent-Aggrieved Appellants filed application u/s 34,A&C Act,1996 before ADJ,Ajmer-Application partly allowed-Appellants challenged award and order-Held-Award passed by Sole Arbitrator based on proper appreciation of evidence and with no illegality-Appeal Dismissed
