Rajasthan Jaipur Court April 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jassu and Shaukat. Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that allegation against petitioners is similar to that of co-accused Rafiq and Akhatar, both of whom were enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.03.2011 of a coordinate bench of this court. Challan has been filed in the present matter. Except this case there is no other case against petitioners. 2. Petitioners would undertake not to indulge in any such or other case in future. The prosecution evidence does not indicate different case of the petitioners from that of co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.3. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application.4. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioner,...
Satya NaraIn @ BhuriyA. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that offence against petitioner in present case is under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and his bail application was rejected by learned court of Sessions only because two other cases were registered against him but in both of them he has been acquitted.2. Challan in the present case has already been filed. Trial may take a long. Petitioner would undertake not to indulge in such or any other offence in future. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.3. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application.4. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioner, namely, Satya Narain @ Bhuriya Son of Heera Lal, Resident of Near Ayappa Mandir, Chatrapura Talab, Vi...
Hotel Himmatgarh Palace, Managing Director, Thar Hotels (P) Ltd, Jaisa ...
Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-13-2011
G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER, J. 1. This appeal arises out of order dated 4.3.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum (DCF), Jaisalmer whereby the complaint was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the the Complainant Hotel Himmatgarh Palace, Jaisalmer had hired architectural and structural consultancy of the Non-applicant for the renovation and extension of the Himmatgarh Palace Hotel complex at Jaisalmer. There were two initial stages, one was conceptual stage and the next was schematic stage. The allegation of the Complainant is that the conceptual design was not complete and therefore there was no question of switching over to schematic design whereas the version of the Non-applicant has been that the conceptual design was complete and therefore for the schematic design more fee was required to be paid, which was not paid. A sum of Rs. 5,30,600/- was paid by the Complainant as consultancy fee. The Complainant prayed for the return of this fee along with Rs. 19,30...
Kamla and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. Aggrieved by the alleged unfair investigation being conducted by the police in the FIR, FIR No.147/2010, registered at Mahila Thana (North), Jaipur for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, the petitioners have approached this Court. They have prayed that since the police has conducted an unfair investigation, therefore, the investigation should be transferred to CID (CB), Jaipur. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 02.12.2009, Smt. Jyoti Sharma, respondent No.2, was married to Kuldeep Sharma, petitioner No.5, according to Hindu customs and Rites. According to Smt. Jyoti Sharma, at the time of her marriage, her parents had given sufficient dowry as per their capabilities. However, when Smt. Jyoti Sharma reached her matrimonial home, both her husband and her in-laws', including both of her sister-in-laws, namely Komal and Alka, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 respectively, started physically and mentally torturing her for dowry demands. Unable to bear their cruel behavior, eventuall...
Smt. Sangeeta Parihar. Vs. Smt. Suraj Parihar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. Both, the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the award dated 19.06.2003, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,14,200/- and has apportioned the compensation amongst the appellant-claimant, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar, claimant-respondent, Smt. Suraj Parihar, respondent No.5, Mr. Raghav Parihar and respondent No.6, Smt. Bhawna Patel. Smt. Sangeeta Parihar has filed the appeal before this Court, while Mr. Raghav Parihar has filed the cross-objection. Since both the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the same award, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.1994, Mr. Ravindra Parihar and his wife, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar and an another lady, Smt. Aruna Swami, were travelling in a Fiat Car, bearing Registration No. RNI 45, from Bheror to Jaipur. Around 9:00 PM, when they reached near the village Aantela, one of the back tires was punctured. Mr. ...
Shri Ram Kishan MeenA. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2009, passed by the Project Director EGS, and aggrieved by the lodging of FIR, FIR No.19/2010, registered at Thana Gazi, Alwar, for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 409 IPC, and aggrieved by the investigation therein, the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be the Sarpanch, who had defeated the complainant, Ram Karan Meena in a panchayat election. According to the petitioner, since the elections were around the corner, Ram Karan Meena lodged a false complaint before the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department.2. In the said complaint, he levelled sixteen allegations against the petitioner. The Secretary appointed the Chief Executive Officer as the Inquiry Officer. On 01.07.2009, the Chief Executive Officer submitted his report wherein it was clearly stated that out of sixteen allegations, thirteen allegations were found to be false, and for two allegat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›