Rajasthan Court January 1998 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.
Manak Chand Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1950
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2.2. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed that F.I.R. No. 78/96 registered at police station, Sumerpur be quashed.3. According to the averments made in the petition, respondent No. 2 Smt. Shobha was married to Shri Manak Chanel (petitioner No. 1) on 28-1-1995. After their marrige the relations between Manak Chand and Smt. Shobha (respondent No. 2) became strained. As a result Smt. Shobha has filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Sumerpur alleging the commission of offences Under Sections 498A and 406, IPC. That complaint was forwarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur to the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sumerpur under Sub-section (3) of Section 156, Cr.P.C. for investigation. On receipt of the complaint, the Station House Officer of...
Kanti and ors. Vs. U.i.T., Bikaner and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj108; 1998(1)WLN1
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13-5-1988 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Suit No. 220/85 (Chhotu Lal v. Chelo Devi and others).2. The brief facts leading up to filing of the present appeal are that plaintiff-respondent No. 3-Chhotu Lal filed a suit against Rugha Ram Luhar (father of the appellants) in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner on 23-12-1980 for mandatory and perpetual injunction. Plaintiff-respondent No. 3 alleged in his plaint that his house is situated at Alakhsagar Road and on the south a pacca road going from D.S.N. Rly's office to Kot Gate and one road from it goes towards the shop of Sunder Lal. It is also alleged that between the house of the plaintiff and both the roads, public chowk and land of public way is in existence. The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 further alleged that the defendant No. 1 has raised construction over the land of public utility which was being used as a publi...
Shree Bikaner Wools Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj197
ORDERA.S. Godara, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 115, CPC, against the order dated 5-8-97 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Civil Summary Suit No. 31/96.2. Briefly stated, for the disposal of this petition, the relevant facts arc that the petitioner-firm is carrying on the business of wool at Bikaner while Bijay Chand Surana as well as defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 Kamal Kumarare partners of the firm. Defendant-non-petitioner No. 1-firm is also carrying on business of wool at Kckari (District Ajmer). Plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 - Bank instituted a summary suit purporting to be under the provisions of Rules 1 and 2 of Order 37, CPC before Ihe Court of District Judge, Bikaner against the defendant-petitioncr-firm as well as defendant-non-petitioner-firm with the wool worth Rs. 96986.22 from defendant-petitioner-firm and the latter was running a cash credit account with the plaintiff-Bank at Kekari. The goods (wool) were despat...
Ram Singh Vs. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1353Raj
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a revision against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner dated January 23, 1996 passed in Cr. Misc. Application No. 30/95.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and learned Public Prosecutor at length.3. Facts in brief are as follows: Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur passed an award dated July 21, 1988 in case No. 25/85 bywhich retrenchment of the petitioner was found illegal and he was in railway administration preferred a writ petition being aggrieved by the award before this Court which was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1195/89, DPOv. CIT, Jaipur, which was finally disposed of on March 20, 1990 by a single Judge of this Court. It was partly accepted and award was modified to the effect that only half of the back wages from the date of termination upto the date of re-engagement of the workman shall be payable to him. However, the petitioner was...
Smt. Uma Vs. Lalit Kumar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC83
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant revision impugns the order dated April 23,. 1997, of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur whereby the application of the non-petitioner under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and the maintenance awarded earlier to the petitioner and her children was ordered to be stopped from the dates mentioned in the impugned decision.2. Admitted facts are that the learned Family Court passed the order on 19th August, 1993 and awarded maintenance in the sum of Rs. 400/- per month to the petitioner and Rs. 500/- per month each to her son and daughter. The non-petitioner moved an application under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Family Court praying therein mat son of the petitioner Vikrant became major on December 25, 1993 and her daughter shall attain majority on October 31, 1997, therefore, the maintenance allowances be ordered to be stopped. It was further prayed that as the petitioner has been serving in Rungta Hos...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1994; 1998(2)WLC73
Mohd. Yamin, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Jodhpur, Miss Chandra Kanta Gupta, for offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. She sentenced the accused appellant to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 302, IPC and in default to undergo5 months simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 201, IPC she sentenced him to 7 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for five months.2. Succinctly stated facts are that Ramnihor, who was the senior cashier in the office of D.R.M., Jodhpur and resident of quarter No, 21/91, New Medical Colony, Jodhpur, reported to Station House Officer, Sardarpura on 11-3-1994 that he went to his office at 9-45 a.m. and when he returned at 5-45 p.m. his wife told that their daughter Malti was missing since 1 p.m. Malti was aged about 8 years and at the relevant time she was wearing...
JaIn Textiles and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3492
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. By this order the above four revision petitions will be decided because the same points of law are involved in all of them.2. In Cr. Revision No. 383/93 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali framed charges under Section 24 read with Section 43 and Section 26 read with Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1974). Om Prakash has challenged the order and wants that this Court should quash the charges.3. In Cr. Revision No. 390/93 the learned Magistrate framed charges under Section 24 read with Section 43 and Section 26 read with Section 44 of the Act of 1974 against petitioners M/s. Chhipa Yusuf Gani, Jeewan Singh and Mohd. Yusuf. They have challenged the order and want that the charges should be quashed.4. In Cr. Revision No. 77/93 M/s. Jain Textiles and Prasanna Kumar have been charged for offence under Section 24 read with Section 43 and Section 26 read with Section ...
Ajay Singh and anr. Vs. State Transport, Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj266; 1998(3)WLC336
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The abovenoted writ petitions have been preferred before this Court by the petitioners who have both challenged the order dated 14-7-1993 passed by the Rajasthan State Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the STAT') in Revision Petition No. STAT (125/93) and Revision Petition No. STAT (151/93) whereby, a non-temporary stage carriage permit granted in favour of the petitioners by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur-respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') for the route Neem-ka-thana to Bhiwuri was quashed and set aside. Since the petitioners in both the writ petitions have challenged the operation and effect of the common order dated 14-7-1993 passed by the STAT and in view of the identical question of law being involved for consideration of this Court, the same are being dealt with and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, I deem it appropriate...
Khuman Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC296
Amaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.2. The facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition may be summarised as below:The petitioner Khuman Chand filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. l, Bikaner on 3rd February, 1988 against 15 persons alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 406, 420, 342, 323, 427, 147, 148 read with 149, Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In his complaint Khuman Chand alleged that he settled the marriage of his daughter with Narendra Kumar (non-petitioner No. 3). The engagement took place on 17th January, 1988. At the time of engagement following sums were paid to persons mentioned below : (1) Rs. 1,101 /- to Shri Punam Chand, the grand-father of Narendra Kumar. (2) Rs. 4,011 /- to Shri Sing Ji, maternal uncle of Narendra Kumar...
Khuman Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1670; 1998(2)WLC233
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.2. The facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition may be summarised as below:-The petitioner Khuman Chand filed a complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Bikaner on 3rd Feb. 1988 against 15 persons alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 406, 420, 342, 323, 427, 147, 148 read with 149, I.P.C. and under Section 3 read with 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In his complaint Khuman Chand alleged that he settled the marriage of his daughter with Narendra Kumar (non-petitioner No. 3). The engagement took place on 17thJan. 1988. Atthetime of engagement following sums were paid to persons mentioned below :-1. Rs. 1101/- to Shri Punam Chand, the grand father of Narendra Kumar.2. Rs. 401/- to Shri Singi Ji, maternal uncle of Narendra Kumar.3. Rs. 201/-to Narendra Kumar.4...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »