Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: August 22 To August 28, 2022

Nominal Index Smt. Rekha Kumari v. Hemendra Choudhary @ Hemraj 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 219 Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 220 State Of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Rekha Kumari and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 221 Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Soni 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 222 Rahul Jain & Ors. v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 223 M/s. Shrimali Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 224 Gram Panchayat, Dujana Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur District Pali, Through Its Sarpanch Smt. Panku Devi v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 225 Judgments/ Orders of the Week Divorce Application Cannot Be Thrown Out Only Because Exact Date Of Marriage Is Not Mentioned: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Smt. Rekha Kumari v. Hemendra Choudhary @ Hemraj Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 219 The Rajasthan High Court has observed that failure to mention the exact date of marriage in an application for divorce alone cannot be the reason for dismissing such application. A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Farzand Ali observed that if the Family Court suspects that the averments on the aspect of marriage are inconclusive, it can exercise powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to put questions to the parties, so as to verify the truthfulness of the averments made in the application. Essentially, the instant misc. appeal was filed by the appellant assailing the judgment-cum-decree passed by the Family Court whereby the application preferred by the appellant and respondent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent was dismissed. Rajasthan High Court Upholds Order Imposing ₹10 Lakh Cost On Medical Institute For "Bench Hunting" Case Title: Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 220 The Principal Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has upheld the single judge bench order, whereby a cost of Rs. 10 lakh was imposed on a medical institution for forum shopping. After the petition filed by Dhanwantri Institute of Medical Science was dismissed as withdrawn from the Jaipur bench of the High Court in April, the institute had approached its principal seat the very next day, seeking similar reliefs, without disclosing the factum of the former petition. In this light, the single judge had dismissed the second writ with 10 lakh cost. Practice of bench hunting has become common these days, the Judge had observed. Ex-Post Facto Consent Of Panchayati Raj Institutions For Transfer Of Medical & Health Dept Employees Serving With It Valid: Rajasthan HC Case Title: State Of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Rekha Kumari and other connected matters Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 221 The Rajasthan High Court has observed that ex-post facto consent of Panchayati Raj Institution for transfer of Medical and Health Department employees serving with it is lawful. The sanction is required under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Rules, 2011. The court was hearing a batch of 91 State-appeals against a single bench order which held that state's decision to itself pass transfer orders without seeking the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department cannot be countenanced. The basic controversy involved was whether employees, whose parent cadre is Medical and Health Department and whose services have been provided to the Panchayati Raj institution, can be transferred without following procedure laid down under Rule 8. The said rule stipulates that the department concerned can issue orders for transfer from one district to another district with the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department. Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Granted Where Bereaved Family Does Not Face "Indigent Circumstances": Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Soni Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 222 The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the decision of a bank denying compassionate appointment saying that the deceased's family was not facing "indigent circumstances" warranting employment under the State's scheme of 2014. PNB had rejected the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment after his father expired while serving as a Head Cashier, on the ground that the family was not facing indigent circumstances. The instant appeal was preferred against a single bench order reversing the Bank's decision. The bank contended that the elder son of the deceased employee is employed in TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) with an annual income of ₹6.47 lakhs. The family had received terminal dues to the extent of ₹16.42 lakhs with no financial liability. Apart from this, the family owned two houses and received a family pension to the tune of ₹15,993 per month. IBPS Can't Refuse...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: August 22 To August 28, 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags