Rajasthan Court December 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.
Umed Singh Vs. S.D.O. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)WLC636; 1999(1)WLN39
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition before this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution on 13.10.98 and challenged the impugned order dated 10.9.97 (Annex.5) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur - respondent No. 1. Thus, this writ petition is filed after a period of more than one year and three months, therefore, only on the short ground of delay and latches, which remained unexplained, it was required to be dismissed.2. On merits also, the petition has no substance. The impugned order at Annex.5 is sought to be challenged by the petitioner, who does not belong to village Hariyada. He is a resident of village Hoon Gaon. The impugned order at Annex.5 is passed by S.D.O., Jodhpur, declaring land of Khasra No. 185 Rakba 118.17 bighas of village Hariyada as 'Gochar' land on the basis of the report submitted by Tehsildar, Bilara. in the impugned order at Annex.5, it has been clearly mentioned that objections were invited from the village people of Hari...
Hansa Ram Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(0)WLN40
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 10.9.1998 (Annex.8) passed in favour of in all 33 persons by Addl. Commissioner (Food) allotting Diesel Barrel Point. However, only present respondent No. 3 is joined as private respondent out of those 33 persons. Serious allegations have been made against the member of the selection committee, who were M.L.As of the State at that time, without making them as a party respondents. When this petition first came up before my learned brother Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. on 22.10.1998, the following order was passed-22.10.98Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. CHAUHAN R.K. Soni, for the Petitioner.Serious allegations have been made against the members of the selection committee though, none of them has been made party. Allegations of malafide cannot be entertained in such a way. Mr. Soni prays for time to implead them as party respondent.Put up after three weeks.2. Instead of joining them as party respondents the...
Mohanlal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC269; 1999(1)WLN42
Arun Madan, J.1. On August 26, 1993 at about 6.00 a.m. PW-3 Shankarlal along with PW-4 Heeralal, resident of village Saiawad reached Police Station Bakani in the District of Alwar and informed PW-22 Khemraj, the Station House Officer, that the present appellant had caused death of Ratiram-deceased. On the basis of such report the SHO registered Crime No. 119/93 under Section 302 IPC and commenced investigation.2. In the course of investigation of the case PW-22 Khemraj, SHO collected the evidence to the effect that PW-1 Smt. Puri Bai, daughter of PW-2 Cheetarlal and PW-11 Smt. Kesar Bai had illicit relations with the appellant-Ratiram, that Smt. Puri Bai had been married with one Prabhulal resident of Surajpura but she left the company of her husband and returned to the house of her parents, that she was then married with one Kanhaiyalal resident of Mahuda (Nayagaon) but she did not stay there also, In her statement Smt. Puri Bai has stated that she has already married for the third ti...
Chimna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj93; 1999(1)WLC397; 1999(1)WLN14
1. The appellant was elected Chairman of the Municipal Board, Pipar City in an Election held on 29-8-95. There were at that time 25 Wards of the Municipal Board and one member each was elected from these wards. A no confidence motion was brought by 14 members of the Board on 14-5-97. Under the law a no confidence motion has to be carried by 2/3 majority of the total number of members of the Board. At the meeting at which the no-confidence motion was put to vote 15 members voted in favour of the motion expressing no-confidence against the appellant. An objection was taken at the meeting that two members had lost their membership because of exclusion of their wards from the Municipal limits on publication of the notification in the extraordinary Gazette in this regard. This objection was upheld and those two members were not allowed to vote. The no confidence motion was declared to have failed because 15 members only had voted in favour of the motion which did not constitute 2/3 of total...
Gyan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: I(2000)DMC634; 1999WLC(Raj)UC304
G.L. Gupta, J. 1. The subject matter of the above two miscellaneous petitions is F.I.R. No. 250/97 of Police Station, Raisingh Nagar registered under Sections 498A and 496, I.P.C. Petition No. 671 /96 has been preferred for quashing the F.I.R. and Petition No. 911/97 has been filed seeking the modification of the bail order dated 9.7.1997 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge imposed the condition that petitioner Gyan Singh's passport shall remain deposited in the Trial Court.2. Mr. Kharlia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the contents of the F.I.R. clearly show that the alleged cruelty had taken place on foreign land and not within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned police station. He pointed out that the petitioner is foreign national and Ranjandeep @ Ranju Bala who is said to have been subjected to cruelty, is also a foreign citizen and contended that the Indian Courts cannot take cognizance and the police has got no power to investigate the matter. ...
Bheru Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1006; 1999(1)WLN22
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. These two misc. second bail petitions are disposed of this common order as they are arising out of same incident. Second bail application No. 3460/98 is filed by accused petitioners Bheralal husband of deceased Aijee, Saku, father-in-law of deceased Aijee and Smt. Sohani alias Soni, mother-in-law of deceased Aijee. Whereas, second bail application No. 3495/98 is filed by Smt. Dali, who is not related either to deceased or to the accused persons. All the accused are facing charge under Section 306 and 498A, IPC on the death of deceased Aijee, who died after consuming poison on 29-7-1998. The case is also committed to the, Court of sessions. Learned counsel Shri Shah appearing for the accused persons Bherulal and other relatives of deceased Aijee vehemently submitted that even taking the prosecution case as it is it cannot be said that the accused persons have committed offence under Section 306, IPC. According to him, at the most, offence, if any, is committed by...
Rupeng and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ724; 1999WLC(Raj)UC189
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-11-81 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, whereby he convicted the appellants Rupeng under Sections 451/ 323 and 304, Part II, IPC, Soma under Sections 451 and 323, IPC and Motiya under Section 451, IPC and sentenced them as follows:-Under Section 304, Pt. II, IPC 4 years RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default 6 months RIUnder Section 451, IPC 6 months RI and a fine of Rs. 250, in default 1 month RIUnder Section 323, IPC fine of Rs. 250, in default one month RI2. The case relates to an occurrence which took place on 19-1-1981 in village Ganpatpura. The prosecution case is that the three accused appellants and two others (since acquitted) had gone into the house of Chimna s/o Mogji, dragged him and took him out of the house and gave beatings and thereby caused his death. The FIR Ex. P/3 was lodged by Mogji on 20-1-81. Dr. P. L. Bhardwaj (PW.13) had performed autopsy on the body of Chimna s/o Mogji. He opin...
Deva Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1115
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 26-9-96 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banner whereby he dismissed the revision of the petitioner filed against the order dt. 9-9-96, passed by the Judicial Magistrate giving the tractor on 'Superdaginama' to non-petitioner No. 2.2. The relevant facts are that Tiku Ram lodged a report that on 13-2-96 he had purchased the tractor No. RJS 9494 from Jala Ram for Rs. 1,30,000/- but the same was forcibly taken away by Deva Ram (petitioner) on the night intervening 11-8-96 & 12-8-96. On this report a case was registered and the tractor was seized from Deva Ram petitioner. Both Deva Ram (petitioner) and Tiku Ram (non-petitioner) made applications before the Magistrate for handing over the tractor to them. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate allowed the application of Tiku Ram and directed the delivery of the tractor to him imposing certain conditions. This ...
Hakra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1103
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur on 18-6-97 convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default one month's further S. I.2. The prosecution case giving rise to the present appeal stated briefly is that; first information report was lodged in Police Station Kherwada by one Kodar Lal at about 9.00 p.m. alleging that at about 5.30 in the afternoon, one Dinesh told him that Hakra, Narayan and Magan, present appellants, have beaten Nawalji and Mani, wife of the person lodging first information report were severely beaten by that accused-persons and they are lying unconscious. The beating was given on a doubt that the wife of Kodar Lal was a demon and therefore, was a threat to the society. While they were taken to the hospital, Nawali died and the other woman Mani was unconscious, later on she su...
Sukhraj and ors. Vs. Poshi Bai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC246; 1999(1)WLN25
Mohd. Yamin, J. 1. In this second appeal the following substantial question of law is involved --WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Civil judge, Sirohi was, by his order dated September 10, 1978, not right in maintaining the decree of demolition of the construction in question, passed by the Munsif, Bali, on September 29, 1977?Before deciding the question, it is pertinent to mention the facts of the case. Plaintiffs Bhabhutmal and Sagarmal filed a suit for possession and injunction alleging that a residential house was situated in village Khudala Tehsil Bali details of which are given in para No. 2 of the plaint. A patta of the house was granted by Thikana to the plaintiffs. The defendants had their house adjacent to the plaintiffs house on the western side. They started construction about two months before and insisted that they would open a new door towards the house and open land of the plaintiffs. This way the plaintiffs were threatening. Plainti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »