Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 188 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing Bhagu Ram & Ors vs Baroda - Rajasthan Gramin Bank on 9 December, 2009

Swatantra Kumar Sharma vs State (Panchyati Raj Dep )Ors on 4 May, 2017

Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions in the same lines as in Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), however, making the present order subject to the final decision to be rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).32671/2013.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Bheeya Ram Jajra vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 March, 2022

So far as, the judgments in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) is concerned, the same is based on judgment in Khama Ram Vishnoi, which judgment in the case of Khama Ram Vishnoi (supra), in light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Love Kush Meena (supra), Methu Meda (supra), Raj Kumar (supra), has lost its efficacy and therefore, the (Downloaded on 03/03/2022 at 08:39:39 PM) (9 of 9) [CW-14240/2021] judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) would not come to the aid of the petitioners.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Imtiyaj Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 March, 2022

So far as, the judgments in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) is concerned, the same is based on judgment in Khama Ram Vishnoi, which judgment in the case of Khama Ram Vishnoi (supra), in light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Love Kush Meena (supra), Methu Meda (supra), Raj Kumar (supra), has lost its efficacy and therefore, the (Downloaded on 03/03/2022 at 08:39:26 PM) (9 of 9) [CW-14240/2021] judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) would not come to the aid of the petitioners.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Bhadu vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 8 February, 2010

SHAKTI SINGH 1 SBCWP No. 5657/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS YADAV 2 SBCWP No. 5658/2008 RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. STATE & ORS 3 SBCWP No. 5768/2008 BABU SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS KAMAL SINGH 4 SBCWP No. 6027/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS GURANG 5 SBCWP No06246/2008 BAL KISHANA VYAS Vs. STATE & ORS 6 SBCWP No. 6531/2008 MEGHA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 7 SBCWP No. 6605/2008 MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 8 SBCWP No. 6673/2008 HANUMAN DAS Vs. STATE & ORS 9 SBCWP No. 6687/2008 MOHABBAT SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 10 SBCWP No. 6748/2008 SHAKTIDHAR Vs. STATE & ORS 11 SBCWP No. 6750/2008 RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 12 SBCWP No. 6751/2008 DHARMARAM Vs. STATE & ORS 13 SBCWP No. 6767/2008 SURENDRA BISHNOI Vs. STATE & ORS KALLA CHANDRA 14 SBCWP No. 6796/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS KANT 15 SBCWP No. 6800/2008 PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 16 SBCWP No. 6801/2008 JALAM SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 17 SBCWP No. 6802/2008 SAROJ SARAN Vs. STATE & ORS SMT. SHARMISTHA 18 SBCWP No. 6807/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS BHATT 19 SBCWP No. 6829/2008 SMT. SUDHA JOSHI Vs. STATE & ORS PANNA LAL 20 SBCWP No. 6857/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS KUMAWAT 2 21 SBCWP No. 6860/2008 SUNITA GURJAR Vs. STATE & ORS RAMESH KUMAR 22 SBCWP No. 6863/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS KATARIYA 23 SBCWP No. 6865/2008 BANWARILAL Vs. STATE & ORS 24 SBCWP No. 7004/2008 SHREE KISHAN BANA Vs. STATE & ORS 25 SBCWP No. 7107/2008 RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 26 SBCWP No. 7520/2008 SHIV DUTT KAVIA Vs. STATE & ORS ONKAR SINGH 27 SBCWP No. 8090/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS SHAKTAWAT GHANSHYAM 28 SBCWP No. 8091/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS SHARMA 29 SBCWP No. 8092/2008 BHAWANA SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS DHIRENDRA SINGH & 30 SBCWP No. 8121/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS ORS LAL SINGH 31 SBCWP No. 8157/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS SHAKTAWAT BAHADUR SINGH 32 SBCWP No. 8167/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS RAO VINOD KUMAR 33 SBCWP No. 8168/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS SUTHAR ANITA KANWAR & 34 SBCWP No. 8259/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS ORS SHAMBHU DAN 35 SBCWP No. 8268/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS CHARAN & ORS 36 SBCWP No. 8410/2008 PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS BHANWAR LAL 37 SBCWP No. 8573/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS BISHNOI & ANR 38 SBCWP No. 8593/2008 SUMAN RANI Vs. STATE & ORS UPENDRA KUMAR 39 SBCWP No. 8600/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS CHOBISA 40 SBCWP No. 9106/2008 RAMAVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 41 SBCWP No. 9217/2008 OMA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 42 SBCWP No. 9774/2008 CHETNA SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 43 SBCWP No. 9797/2008 SMT. MANJU VERMA Vs. STATE & ORS 3 SMT. BHARTI 44 SBCWP No10009/2008 Vs. STATE & ORS TALWADIYA & ANR.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 20 - Cited by 84 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Anand Mittal vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 9 March, 2010

On the other hand, in respect of those who filed objections they might have locus standi to contend that S.5A inquiry was not conducted properly, we , therefore, agree in principle with the view of the three Judge Bench in Abhey Ram's case (1997 AIR SCW 2513: AIR 1997 SC 2564) that those who have not filed objections under S.5A, could not be allowed to contend that the S.5A inquiry was bad and that consequently S.6 declaration must be struck down and that then the S.4 notification would lapse. If, therefore, no objections were filed by the respondents, logically the S.6 16 declaration must be deemed to be in force so far as they are concerned."(empasis added)
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 71 - Cited by 6 - S R Lodha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next