Rajasthan Court April 2001 Judgments
Raj. Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chandra Kanta Purohit ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC668; 2001(4)WLN426
Yamin, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 27.1.2001 by which he allowed the appeal of the respondent and ordered that Smt. Chandra Kanta Purohit may submit personal bond of Rs. five lacs together with two solvent sureties of Rs. five lacs each and then delivery letter shall be issued by M/s. Samrat Shipping & Transport System and Smt. Chandra Kanta shall pay the due custom duty and then her goods would be delivered to her.2. Briefly slated, Smt. Chandra Kanta filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur to the effect that she was residing in Sharjah with her husband Dr. G.L. Purohit. Earlier Dr. G.L. Purohit was an employee of Government of Rajasthan and had resigned in the year 1978. He first went to Iran and worked there upto 1984 and then shifted to United Arab Amiral and opened Purohit Poly Clinic at Sharjah. It was in the year 1999 that he decided t...
Tag this Judgment!Dhruvendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN380
Garg, J.1. The above appeals being No. 136/99, 133/99 & 169/99 and the State appeal No. 326/99 are being decided by this common judgment as they all have been preferred against the judgment dated 8.2.1999 and order of sentence dated 9.2.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 8/98.2. By the said judgment dated 8.2.1999, the learned Special Judge acquitted accused respondents Hanuman Prasad and Parmanand of the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 342 and 376(2)(g) IPC; accused respondents Jethu Singh of the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST Act'); accused respondent Sanjay Kumar of the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 342,376(2)(g), 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act; and accused respondent Gaurav Kumar @ Ganga of the charge...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3462; 2001(4)WLC643; 2001(4)WLN52
ORDERShashi Kant Sharma, J.1. This revision filed by petitioner Murari Lal is directed against the order dated 7-6-1994, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bayana setting aside the order dated 11-2-1993, passed by learned A.C.J.M. Bayana, and remanding the case for trial 2. Record was called for and arguments were heard.3. Brief facts relating to this Criminal Revision are that a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector on 11th Sept. 1984, against the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), mentioning therein that the petitioner was selling ice-cream ('Kulfi') at the Railway Station, Bayana, on 28-4-1984. The complainant purchased 900 Grams of icecream and sent the same for testing to the Laboratory, which was found to be adulterated . After trial, learned A.C.J.M. Bayana, convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him for one year's RI. and a fine of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Paramount Pollution Control Ltd. Baroda Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC551
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.(1). Heard Mr. G.G. Sharma and Shri Abhay Bhandari, learned counsel for the parties.(2). M/s. Paramount Pollution Control Ltd., the applicant herein, filed the above application u/S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicant Company was awarded a contract for a sum of Rs. 8,26,81,000/-. After observing the formalities, the work was entrusted to the applicant Company and the applicant has completed the work on time and in accordance with the prescribed parameters Certain differences have cropped up with regard to the above work. It is the case of the applicant Company herein that they have literally abided by the terms and conditions of the contract, whereas, the respondent company finds faults with the applicant company on one pretext or the other, and a huge amount of Rs. 1,21,43,832/- remains outstanding against the respondent Company.(3). The parties have entered into an agreement, Annexure-1, dated, 22nd June, 1994. Clause 3.67 is the relev...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Irfan Vs. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj395; 2001(3)WLC120
Kokje, J.(1). The case was fixed for consideration of stay application but with the consent of the parties, it was finally heard.(2). The question involved in the case is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to appear at the LLB first year examination. The petitioner for the first time appeared in 1997- 98 examination of LLB first year as a regular student. In September, 1998, the result of the examination was declared and the petitioner was declared failed-in that examination. In April, 1999, me petitioner appeared as an ex-student in the LLB first year examination. In August, 1999, the result of the examination was declared and the petitioner was declared to have failed because he could not secure 48% marks in aggregate in all the subjects though he had secured minimum 36% marks in each subject. He appeared in November, 1999 examination but failed. The petitioner wanted to appear in the examination for the year 2000, LLB first year examination but the University held him to be d...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3725
Jagat Singh, J.1. Narayan Singh accused-appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 10-10-2000 delivered by Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh by filing this appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 374, Cr. P.C. By the impugned judgment learned Court below has convicted accused-appellant under Part I of Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine 15 days rigorous imprisonment was also awarded.2. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended before us that the charges under Sections. 304-B and 201 of I.P.C. were framed not only against the accused-appellant but also against his father Laluram, mother Jamni Bai and brother Onkar Lal but the Court below has acquitted all the accused persons in the above charges except the present appellant only on the basis of conjecturs and surmises. When the charge of murder was not proved how can accused-appellant be convicted under Part I of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Sharma Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN713
B.J. Shethna, J.1. While issuing notice on this petition, my learned brother Hon'ble Shri N.P. Gupta, J. on 8.3.2001 by an interim order directed the learned trial Judge to take all possible steps immediately to ensure that the witnesses are positively examined on 24,4.2001 and the matter was kept on 27.4.2001 i.e. today. The learned Magistrate was also directed to give an explanation as to why for such a long time, very often process was not issued to the witnesses and that the matter was delayed.2. When the matter was called out in the morning, it was stated at the bar by learned counsel Mr. Garg for the petitioner that 20 witnesses were called to remain present to depose before the Court on 24.4.2001 and out of them only 5 witnesses turned up and they were examined by the learned Trial Magistrate and the next date of 29.5.2001 was given in the matter. However, though directed the learned Magistrate had not sent his explanation by today, therefore, the office was asked to enquire abo...
Tag this Judgment!Akhtar HussaIn and ors. Vs. Municipality
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC662; 2007(2)WLN718
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned orders dated 18.1.1996 and 29.1.1996 passed by learned S.D.M., Bali in criminal misc. No. 6/1996 whereby he has ordered the petitioners to close down their meat shops.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the learned trial Judge was wholly in error in passing the order under Section 133 Cr. P.C. without giving them any opportunity of hearing.3. This submission of learned counsel Mr. Mehta has no substance because in the instant case, the Executive Officer of the respondent Municipality filed an application under Section 133 Cr. P.C. for removing the nuisance caused by the petitioners by running meat shops in the heart of the town where there is an old temple of Lord Shiva and there is also a Dharamshala where number of persons coming for pilgrimage stay overnight and have food also. Most of the population around the place is vegetarian. Dharamshala is used for the purpose of marri...
Tag this Judgment!Channa Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN135
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants againstthe judgment and order dated 17.6.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC andST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 70/99 by whichthe learned Special Judge has convicted the accused appellants for offences under Section304B and 498A l.P.C. and has sentenced them as follows:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Offence Sentence awarded---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------304B I.P.C. - 10 years' R.I.498A I.P.C. - 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo1 month's R.I.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(2). It arises in the following circumstances:i) That on 1.7.99, P.W. 3 Gaja Ram lodged a written report...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Bhatia and Etc. Vs. Smt. Punam Bhatia and ors. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj338; 2002(5)WLC868
J.C. Verma, J.1. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 245/2000 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 6-12-1999 passed by the District Judge. Jaipur city. Jaipur by Surendra Bhatia -- defendant, in the suit filed by Smt. Poonam Bhatia by which decree he had allowed the application of the respondent plaintiff of grant of succession certificate; whereas Appeal No. (defect) 219/2000 is also directed against the same judgment and decree dated 6-12-1999 by Smt. Swarn Anand D/o Shri Chunni Lal Bhatia who was one of the defendant in the suit filed by Smt. Poonam.2. The respondent-plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia w/o Late Sudershan Bhatia and Kumari Smita Bhatia D/o Late Sudershan Bhatia R/o 7, Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur had filed a suit for succession certificate against Surendra Bhatia, Smt. Swarn Anand sons and daughters of Shri Chunni Lal Bhatia and Kumari Smita Bhatia wife of Shri K. B. Bhatia.3. Suit was filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 stating therein...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »