Rajasthan Court May 2000 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Lokesh Kumar and Ars.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC94; 2000(3)WLC257; 2000(2)WLN568
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Ordinarily, while granting leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal and admitting the appeal, this Court is not required to pass a speaking order but learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Vyas vehemently submitted that this is a Gross case in which the learned Trial Judge committed a grave error in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable u/S. 304-B and 498A I.P.C., therefore, non-bailable warrant be also issued. (2). The respondent no. 1 accused Lokesh Kumar is husband of deceased Kiran. They got married on 18.5.94 and within a period of less than five months, his wife deceased Kiran committed suicide on 7.10.94 because of the constant demand of dowry from her by her husband Lokesh Kumar and mother-in-law Bhanwari Devi. (3). Going through the impugned order of acquittal, prima-facie it appears that the learned Judge acquitted the accused against all the well settled norms and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of cas...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Mal and ors. Vs. Sumer Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj95; 2000(3)WLC472; 2000(3)WLN372
ORDERGupta, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant in a suit for redemption and recovery of actual physical possession of the mortgaged property being shop situated at Moti Bazar. Nimbahera Distt. Chittorgarh. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court for redemption inasmuch as while deciding issue no. 1 and4 the learned trial court held that since the defendant did not have objection in redeeming the property, the plaintiff was held entitled to redemption, but the plaintiff was held to be not entitled to actual physical possession of the property. Against this decree the plaintiff filed appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has been allowed by impugned judgment and decree. The learned lower Appellate Court modified the finding of the learned trial court on issue no. 1 and 4, and held that on payment of mortgage amount, consequent upon redemption, the plaintiff is also entitled to actual physical possession of the suit shop. The learned lower App...
Tag this Judgment!Godfrey Philips India Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC54(Raj)
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioners, by filing the present writ petition, assail the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as 'Act No. 13 of 1999' See [2000] 120 STC Statutes 1), together with notification dated October 15, 1999 and circular dated October 23, 1999, on the ground, inter alia, that tax levied under the aforesaid Act No. 13 of 1999 ; notification dated October 15, 1999 and circular dated October 23, 1999 impose restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, guaranteed by Article 401 of the Constitution of India and that as Act No. 13 of 1999 is not law passed after obtaining the previous sanction and thereafter assent of the President of India, within the meaning of Article 404(b), read with Article 255 of the Constitution, hence, tax levied upon them is invalid. It is prayed that it may be declared that the petitioner No. 1 is not required to take dealership licence and also not requi...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Bhansali (Smt.) Vs. Surendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN387
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The petitioner Smt. Kailash Bhansali is wife of respondent Shri Surendra Kumar. She has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 23.3.2000 (Annex. 5) passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Udaipur, whereby, he not only allowed the application dated 29.12.1999 filed by the respondent husband to plead his case through the lawyer of his choice Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma, but also granted permission to petitioner-wife to plead her case through the lawyer of her choice though no such request was made by her.(2). Respondent husband had earlier filed an application for divorce before the Family Court, Udaipur seeking divorce from his wife-present petitioner, which was dismissed on 30.3.95 by the then Judge of Family Court. Thereafter, the petitioner wife filed application u/S: 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right against her husband before the Family Court, Udaipur which was allowed on 26.10.1996 by the then Judge of Family Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kailash Bhansali Vs. Surendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj390; 2000(3)WLC543
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner Smt. Kailash Bhansali is wife of respondent Shri Surendra Kumar. She has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 23-3-2000 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Judge of Family Court. Udaipur, whereby, he not only allowed the application dated 29-12-1999 filed by the respondent husband to plead his case through the lawyer of his choice Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma, but also granted permission to petitioner-wife to plead her case through the lawyer of her choice though no such request was made by her.2. Respondent husband had earlier filed an application for divorce before the Family Court, Udaipur seeking divorce from his wife present petitioner, which was dismissed on 30-3-1995 by then Judge of Family Court. Thereafter, the petitioner wife filed application under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right against her husband before the Family Court, Udaipur which was allowed on 26-10-1996 by the then Judge of Family ...
Tag this Judgment!Birbal Maharia Vs. the Director General of Prisons and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4205; 2000(3)WLC189
G.L. Gupta, J. 1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the say of the petitioner is that he is in jail since 1992 and has undergone more than nine years sentence, yet he has not been granted parole. It is stated that the petitioner had moved applications to the Jail Authorities for the grant of parole on 12-8-1997, 17-3-1998, 6-11-1998 and 31-7-99, but in vain whereas under the law he is entitled for the grant of first parole. It is further stated that looking to the good conduct of the petitioner, he is in open jail and, therefore, there could not be any cause to refuse the parole to the petitioner.2. In the reply, the respondents have stated that the grounds mentioned in the applications of the petitioner were found to be false and the parole has been refused on the basis of adverse reports of the S.P. and the Social Welfare Officer.3. We had heard arguments on 24-5-2000, and the order was reserved. While perusing the record, we noticed that the matte...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuri Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN558
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This is a letter petition by Bhuri Singh convict, who is a convict under Section 302 IPC and is lodged in open jail at Bikaner. It is stated that the first parole was granted to the petitioner in May 1997 but thereafter second and third paroles, which have become due, have not been granted to him.2. The State of Rajasthan has filed reply, in which it is stated that the matter of grant of parole to Bhuri Singh was considered in the meeting of District Advisory Parole Committee on 15.10.1999 but the Committee rejected his case.3. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.4. It is noticed that the matter of grant of parole was considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting on 15.10.1999, which was presided over by Shri Mahesh Chandra Bhardwaj, Collector Karoli, Shri Banney Singh, Acting Supdt. of Police, Karoli, Shri Murari Lal Meena, District Social Welfare Officer, Karoli, Shri J.P. Ragor, & Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Kishan Vs. Madan Lal Verma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3619; 2000(3)WLC245; 2000(3)WLN426
ORDERChauhan, J.1. The instant contempt petition has been filed complaining that the order, passed by this Court on 5.7.1993 in Writ Petition No. 2211/1993, has not been complied with by the respondents. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had filed a writ petition for issuing direction to the respondents claiming promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk from Class IV Employee on the basis that he possessed the requisite qualification for the post (Prathma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in 1981) and there was a quota for departmental promotion from Class IV Employee to Lower Division Clerk. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 5.7.93 directing the respondents to consider his representation for promotion within two months of the presentation of the certified copy of the order. As the matter has not been considered, petitioner has filed the instant petition. (3). There is an inordinate delay...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Vs. Laxman
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj6; 2000(3)WLC464; 2000(3)WLN441
ORDERGupta, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as nobody has appeared on behalf of non petitioner on the last date of hearing being 17.5.2000 and even today. (2). By the impugned orders the learned trial court has made provisional determination of rent u/S. 13(3) calculating the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month as claimed by the plaintiff and the learned lower appellant court has affirmed the same. (3). Assailing these orders the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, firstly that there is no material on record on the basis of which the learned trial court could arrive at a conclusion about the monthly rent of the suit premises being Rs. 150A per month, on the other hand according to the learned counsel the premises were taken on rent in the year 1963-64 at the rate of Rs. 17/- per month and the re fore, the determination is bad. Secondly it has been contended that the petitioner had produced on record the receipt of the year 1965 showing the rent t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Sahai Vs. Ramadevi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC259; 2001(1)WLN673
ORDERMadan, J.(1). This revision petition arises out of order dated 6.12.99 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaipur (West) whereby he rejected the defendant's application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC for production of a will in Civil Suit No. 413/87 executed by late Shri Tikaramji in favour of his daughter in law Ramadevi (plaintiff) and further to summon another will in respect of the suit shop executed by late Shri Tikaram in favour of his wife Radhadevi which was submitted in another suit for eviction filed by Radhadevi mother in law of Ramadevi against Banshidhar before Addl. Civil Judge No.4, Jaipur City.(2). The aforesaid defendant's (petitioner) application had been filed in a suit for eviction having been instituted by plaintiff Ramadevi against defendant Bhagwan Sahai on 11.8.87 on the ground of default in payment of rent. The plaint was later on amended on 13.12.96 incorporating two new grounds. (1) reasonable and bonafide necessity of her son Vijay Singh and (2) ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »