Rajasthan Court May 2001 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.
Prithvi Raj Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC806; 2007(3)WLN317
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. In this case on the basis of FIR No.86/1999, Jalore Police started investigation into an offence Under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and during the investigation, arrested certain persons against whom, challan has been filed. Pending investigation and trial, bail applications have been moved in trial Court as also in this Court.2. S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Petition No. 1961/2000 was filed by Mohan Lal and another in this Court which was dismissed on dated 18.7.2000. Thereafter, S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.3059/2000 was filed in this Court by Prithvi Raj and it was dismissed on 20.11.2000. Mohan Lal and another again filed a bail application bearing No.268/2001 which was dismissed by this Court on 7.2.2001.3. Then S.B. Criminal IInd Bail Application No.849/2001 was filed by Mohan Lal and another in this Court on 5.3.2001 which was granted by me on 8.3.2001. On 22.3.2001, S.B. Cr. IInd Bail Application No. 1015/2001 is filed by Prithvi Raj and S....
Roop Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC191; 2003(2)WLN122
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh dated 31.10.1995 whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8 read with 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to 10 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 years further R. I.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.11.1993 at about 2.15 p.m. P.W. 14 Uma Kant Bhatt the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, Begun received a secret information, that one person is sitting in the waiting room at the bus stand with one Maroon colour ragajine bag containing opium. It was also learnt that the said person is waiting for his companion to arrive. This information was noted down as Memo Ex. P-12, and a copy was sent to the Superintendent of Police vide Ex. P-13 and he proceeded with requisite force to the bus stand, there he found ...
Chagan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN264
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This special appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 5.9.2000, whereby, the learned Single Judge has refused to place reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court delivered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 373/95 (Prabhu v. Hindusthan Zinc Limited and Ors.) decided on 21.11.1996, wherein, it has been held that since there was an agreement between the parties, the respondents should give suitable appointment to the petitioner considering his educational qualification and experience on the ground that making such order to grant specific performance in this aspect is not the jurisdiction under Article 226. 2. We are afraid, such a view taken by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable at all. Law on the point is very clear. Whenever the Hon'ble Supreme Court or High Court passes an order, it has to be presumed that all the relevant ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. C.A.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN179
Shethna, J. 1. Three contentions have been raised in this petition by the learned counsel Mr. Bhandari for the petitioners:-(1) The learned Tribunal has committed an error in accepting the original application filed by the original applicant and directed the present petitioners to regularise his services on the post of Assistant Superintendent with effect from 28.2.85 and grant him actual financial benefits of pay fixation when the original applicant failed to pass suitable test. (2) Against the original applicant, number of ACRs were there between 1985 to 1999 and actually he was punished in 1999, therefore, such a person cannot be given regularisation. (3) There was a mistake on the part of Union of India in regularising the services of Mohan Singh and Sadanand on the post of Assistant Superintendent, therefore, such a mistake cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by regularising the services of the applicant. 2. From the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it i...
Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC308; 2001(4)WLN472
Verma, J.1. The petitioner Radhey Shyam, now dead, was employee of the UIT, Ajmer, having been appointed as Munshi in the year 1968. He was promoted as LDC in the year 1979.2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 25.1.1986 on the allegation that he had remained wilfully absent from duty from 19.12.1985 to 31.12.1985 and that he was on regular habit of delayed visiting to the office and he was negligent in his duties. Ultimately one Mahesh Chand Sharma was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 8.8.1986. The Enquiry Officer had given a finding against the delinquent official; a tentative decision of imposing penalty of removal was taken against the petitioner. While imposing the punishment, the Secretary, UIT had taken into account that he had come to the office late on 1.7.1986, 21.7.1986, 22.7.1986 and again four days in the month of August 1986 and then about a few days in the months of December 1986 but after attending the office for sometime, he had left the office. He was ordered to be r...
Choudhary Co. Bhujiawala Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(NULL)357
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, AMThis appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 21-7- 2000, confirming the penalty of Rs. 98,000 imposed unders.271D.2. In this case the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has accepted the deposits/loans in cash amounting to Rs. 98,000 in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS. He, therefore, referred this matter to Jt. CIT, Bikaner, who initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271D by issuing show-cause notice to the assessee. In reply, the assessee tried to show/establish a reasonable cause by explaining the urgency of funds required to meet the exigencies of payments and also by stating that the genuineness of all the transactions have been accepted by the department. This plea of the assessee, however, was not accepted by Jt. CIT and he proceeded to impose a penalty under section 271D holding that the assessee has clearly violated the provisions of section 269SS without any rea...
Pema Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN255
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.1.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, convicting the appellant Prma Ram and Dhula of the offence Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to paya fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Both the appellants have also been convicted of the offence Under Section 364 IPC:2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that P.W. 1. Khuma Ram lodged an F.I.R. Ex.P.1/Ex.P.16 on 17.3.1995 at 9.15 A.M. at Police Station, Bekariya stating inter alia that after the Holi function, his brother Manna Ram in the night at about 2.30 reached at the house of his uncle P.W. 7 Natha. While he was sleeping, appellants Pema Ram and Dhula armed with a gun and arrow & bow arrived. They asked them to come out of the house. They dragged them to the house of Dhula. Natha somehow succeeded in escaping. It...
Rupa Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN261
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 6.6.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No. 46/1993 by which he convicted the accused appellants Rupa Ram and Bhuria for offence Under Section 325 I.P.C. and convicted accused appellant Prabhura for offence Under Section 323 I.P.C, but instead of sentencing them the learned Additional Sessions Judge released them on probation under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and further directed that the accused appellant Rupa Ram would pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to injured P.W. 3 Poma Ram and accused appellant Bhuria would pay Rs. 3000/- to injured Mana Ram P.W. 11 and accused appellant Prabhura would pay Rs. 500/- to Poma Ram P.W. 3, Rs. 500/- to Mana Ram P.W. 11 and Rs. 500/- to Goma Ram P.W. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the same judgment acquitted rest of the accused, namely, Mst. Hanja, Mst. ...
Pawan N. Chandra Vs. Rajasthan High Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC43; 2002(1)WLN132
Prasad, J. (1). The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against an adverse entry made for the year 1996 in the Annual Confidential Report (referred to hereinafter as 'A.C.R.') of the petitioner. A representation was filed by the petitioner against such adverse entry and the same has been rejected on the administrative side by the High Court. While the petitioner preferred the representation, he claims that he had requested for grant of an opportunity of personal hearing before the Committee of Hon'ble Judges constituted to consider the representation of the petitioner against the adverse entry communicated to the petitioner for the year 1996. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner as prayed for and the petitioner and the petitioner received a communication Annex. P.4 from the Registrar General informing him that his representation has been rejected.(2). The petitioner claims in the representation that the communication Annex. P.4 did not disclose any reasons l...
Dan Ji Vs. Arjun Lal and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN329
ORDERPanwar, J.(1). This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.8.95 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur (for short 'the Tribunal') in MACT Cases No. 40 of 1993 by which the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation in favour of appellant and against the respondents.(2). Aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-claimant has filed this appeal.(3). Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are thus : On the intervening night of 12th/13th October, 1992, while appellant, Hariya, Laloo and Bhoora were sleeping in their field situated in village Gariyala. They were run over by Truck No. RJB 575 which came from Gariyala side. At the relevant lime, the said truck was driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 1 Arjunlal. Due to this accident, the appellant sustained service injuries on his person resulting in fracture ofboth the legs. Des...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »