Rajasthan Court February 1999 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.
Suresh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC201; 1999(1)WLN234
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road in Sessions Case No. 8/93 the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.2. By the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the accused guilty of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He has sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 304-B and two years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A. According to the accused this order of conviction and sentence is unsustainable in law. Hence this appeal.3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the accused was married to one Rekha who met unnatural death on 5.2.1993 within months of her marriage with the accused. It was claimed by the relatives of the victim that her unnatural death is caused by her husband, sister-in-law and mother-in-law as they used to persistently harass her claiming more...
M.L. Aneja Vs. M.D., Haryana State Minor Irrigation (Tube-wells) Co. L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC420; 2001ACJ204; 1999(3)WLC44; 1999(1)WLN239
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.1985 passed by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Banswara in Claim Case No. 16 of 1983, M.L. Aneja v. Managing Director. By the impugned order, the claim filed by the appellant was rejected on the ground that he was not a workman and the injury was not caused to him in connection with work being performed by him.2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the instant case, the findings given by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner are not correct and, therefore, the appeal should be allowed and compensation claimed by the appellant in his claim petition should be awarded.3. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and added that the finding that the appellant-claimant was not a workman within the meaning of Clause (n) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the W...
United India Insurance Co. Vs. Smt. Saroj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC539; 1999(1)WLN166
A.K. Singh, J.1. Perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application does not contain any reasons for the delay. It is stated in the applications that for reasons mentioned in the affidavit, the delay be condoned. It is further mentioned in the application that the affidavit shall be deemed to be part of the application.2. It is not within the power of a party to make any document apart of the application, at his will. The court may, in appropriate cases, permit a party to treat a document, as a part of the application. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, must contain the reasons for delay. Any application, which does not contain any such reasons and merely refers to the affidavit or any other document can be rejected on the ground that the application does not contain any reasons/or delay. Those who want justice, must come to the Court with clean hands, which means that they must state the reasons on which they seek the relief, in their pe...
Jas Raj Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC59; 1999(1)WLN164
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was in Railway's service as class IV servant and also retired from service since long. In 1971 he was allotted 25 bighas of agricultural land on temporary cultivation basis. Later on, in 1974 he was permanently allotted the land. It is not in dispute that when the land was allotted to him he was a landless person. He cultivated the land and nourished the same for so many years. However, after a lapse of almost 15 years of allotment, the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chattargarh ordered enquiry on a complaint received by him to the effect that when the land was allotted to him he was in Govt. service, which fact was not disclosed by him. The petitioner filed a reply and pointed out that he had a large family of 9 members and his monthly income was hardly Rs. 185/-, therefore, he applied for land which was allotted to him in 1971. Bonafidely, he was under the impression that ...
Janwat Raj Vs. Dev Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN167
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10th April, 96 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat (camp Jaitaran) in appeal against decree No. 20/95 Dev Kumar v. Janwat Raj. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat remanded the case to the trial court with the direction that the defendant be given opportunity to lead his evidence on issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.3. It appears that the appellants Janwat Raj and Manak Raj filed the civil suit No. 6/92 Janwat Raj v. Dev Kumar in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jaitaran for eviction and arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendant on several grounds. As many as 13 issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). During the trial provisional rent was determined by the trial court und...
Johri Forts and Paqlaces (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC753; 1999(1)WLN92
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Within ten days of the commission of the alleged offence this petition is filed by the present petitioners, who are the complainants, making a prayer to this Court, in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to the effect that instead of local police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) be directed to investigate into the complaints in question filed by the parties before the local police as the petitioners have no faith in the local police for the reasons mentioned in the petition. Another prayer made in this petition is to direct the local police to restore all the petitioner's valuables including securities, records, cash and jewellery which are in possession of H.H. Narendra Singh and his accomplices.2. Second prayer is regarding restoration of possession of the valuable articles for which the petitioner had better alternative and efficacious remedy before the competent court and not before this Court in its writ jurisdiction. In case o...
The State of Raj. Vs. Smt. Shyamkaur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC240; 1999(1)WLN162
B.J. Shethna, J.1. In the instant case, initially proceedings were initiated under the Old Ceiling Act against one Sanyam Singh which was subsequently dropped after the trial on the ground that he had no excess land as per the order date 3.7.71. Under the New Ceiling Act also proceedings were initiated against him but they were also dropped. However, lateron, in exercise of powers under Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act the case was reopened under the Old Ceiling Act by an order dated 10.7.87. After a period of almost 7 years the Addl. Collector by his impugned order dated 18.4.95 (Annex. 1) held that Sanyam Singh had excess land of 16.3 bighas. That order was challenged by the L.Rs. of deceased Sanyam Singh, who died during the pendency of proceedings before the Addl. Collector, by way of appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed on 27.3.98 (Annex.2). The same has been challenged in this petition by the petitioner-State of Rajasthan under Article 227 of the Constitution...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›