Rajasthan Court July 2001 Judgments
Sadhuram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC633; 2002(1)WLN77
Madan, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Neem Ka Thana (Sikar) convicting & sentencing Jagdish (A1) & Sadhuram (A2) appellants for following offences has been assailed-Sadhuram (A2) Under Section 498A IPC - Three years' R1 with a fine of Rs. 250A (indefault, further 3 months's R1)Under Section 302 IPC - Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-(in default, further two years' SI) Jagdish (A1)Under Section 201 IPC - 3 years' R1 with a fine of Rs. 500/- (indefault, further 6 months' SI)2. Facts in nutshell are that on the basis of Parcha Bayan (ExP4) of Malaram (Pw3) recorded by Gokul Singh (PW13) (Sub Inspector) on 22.11.96, FIR No. 372/96 (ExP10) was registered at PS Neemka Thana alleging therein that in midnight of 22.11.96 at 1 A.M. Jagdish (A1) came to the house of Malaram requesting to accompany him as his son Sadhuram (A2)'s wife Rukma was not opening the door so he accompanied Jagdish to his brother Narain's house from where Narain also j...
Tag this Judgment!Bhura Ram Alias Bhuriya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC197; 2001(4)WLN662
Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd September, 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and.sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly slated the prosecution case is that while in the intervening night of 10th & 11th May, 1995 in village Bhamariya number of people had assembled for offering to the deity known as Bheruji and they were singing, abruptly appellant Bhura Ram appeared and gave a Kulhari blow on the back of Dharma, who died instantaneously. An information of the incident was received from P.W. 8 Fatta at about 11.00 A.M. at Police Station, Rohida. The police after making an entry in the Rojnamcha vide Ex. P18 proceeded to the spot. Nona the father of deceased Dharma gave a written report of the incident on the basis of which F.I.R. Ex.P19 was registered. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC179; 2001(4)WLN494
Jagat Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24th January, 1998 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 15/97 whereby accused appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 498A and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/-. in default of payment whereof further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 302. IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment doing with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The charges against the accused appellant are that he subjected his wife Mst. Chand Kanwar to cruelty because his demand of dowry has not been fulfilled and in the midnight of May 28-29, 1997, in his own residential house at Nagori Gate, Jodhpur, by sprinkling kerosine oil. he burnt to death not...
Tag this Judgment!Nirbhay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj28; 2003(2)WLN357
Mathur, J. 1. The applicants, 66 in number, are tenants in he shops belonging to the third respondent Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Saheb, Hanumangarh Tow and Junction by way of joint application seeks leave to special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.10.1996 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4522/1993 Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Saheb, Hanumangarh Town and Junction v. State. The applicants have also filed a joint writ petition seeking direction to quash notification of the State Government dated September 15, 1998 and June 3, 1999 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section 3 of Section2 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950') issued in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.10.96. The effect of the notification is that third respondent has been exempted from the application of the provisions of the Act of 1950.2. We have heard Shri D.S. Sishodia, Senior Advocate with Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal at length...
Tag this Judgment!Singhal Construction Company, Bharatpur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC325; 2001(4)WLN480
Lakshmanan, C.J.(1) The above application was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act), for appointment of an Arbitrator.(2). The applicant is a partnership firm having its principal place of business at Bharatpur. The applicant entered into a contract with the non - applicant No. 1 State for construction of road from Jhalera to Alipura in Hinda'un Division under the Contract No. 167/95-96 and the estimated cost of construction was Rs. 12,89,852/-. A copy of the Agreement has been filed and marked as Annex. 1. According to the applicant, the firm started the work under the contract aforesaid and the work even continued beyond the originally agreed period for the reason attributable to the Stale and for the reasons beyond the control of the applicant. The period for completion of work was extended upto 12.12.97. The applicant submitted the final bill to the non- applicant in the sum of Rs. 11,00,156/- vide letter dated, 17.4.1998. Despite ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Lal Vs. Kumari Leela
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC26; 2001WLC(Raj)UC763
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This 482 petition has been filed by the husband against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh dated 10.3.2000, whereby the petitioner's revision was dismissed. The learned Trial Court in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/- to two minor children Leela and Mukesh, however award of maintenance was refused to wife Bhagwani. The learned Trial Court in para 12 held that Bhagwani is not entitled to maintenance as at the time of her alleged marriage with the petitioner Narain Lal, he had already a wife alive.2. The main controversy involved in the matter is as to whether the two children are the children out of loins of the petitioner or not The controversy arose because the petitioner Narain Lal had taken a positive stand about his having not contracted any sort of marriage with Bhagwani, and has also denied paternity of two children. On the other hand it...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Umli and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN509
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.11.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, convicting the appellants of offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. They have also been convicted of the offence under Section 325/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted of the offence under Sections 148 and 323/149 I.P.C..2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 15.7.1988, PW-2 Smt. Kishna had gone to her field alongwith his minor son Ashok. Her field is adjacent to the field of accused Teja Ram. Appellant Teja Ram blocked the way passing through her field. This was objected by her deceased husband Chhagan Lal, when he visited the field in the evening alongwith PW-3 Bajrang Singh. Teja Ram gave him no care reply. On his call, Teja Ram's sons Mohan, Likhma and one Dhanna Ram s/o Kalu Ram arrived. ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Vs. Madan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj378; 2002(4)WLN440
Verma, J.1. The revision petitioner was plaintiff in the suit for specific performance and has come up against the order dated 12.5.1999 passed by the Additional Dislrict Judge, Gangapur City whereby the order dated 23.11.1998 passed by the trial court was confirmed in interim injunction application.2. As per the facts the petitioner plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents in regard to the land khasra No. 1180 measuring 1.19 Hectors situated in village Gadhi Gopalpura and other land as mentioned in the suit. It was stated that earlier this land was in the khatedari of one Ram Swaroop and the land was purchased by the present petitioner- plaintiffs on 20.3.1992 from respondent No. 2 Ram Swaroop and were also put in possession. The defendant madan was also having half share in the land Khasra No. 1180. Even though the agreement is said to have been entered into between the parties, but sale- deed was not executed for certain reasons and, therefore, sui...
Tag this Judgment!Shoukat Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ364; 2002(3)WLN316
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 16.2.1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 24/1985 by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 366 and 354 IPC in place of 376/511 IPC and sentenced in the following manner:-Nameof accused appellantConvictedu/Sec.Sentenceawarded to each accused appellant1. Shoukat2. Harun3661PCFouryears' Rl and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo Rt for two months.354IPCTwoyears' RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo Rl for two months.Boththe substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 27.5.1985 at about 12.30 PM, PW1 Rampyari (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix), aged 35 years, who was-Nurse (ANM) in the Primary Health Centre, Basni District Nagaur lodged a wri...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Bus Service and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC676; 2002(2)WLN139
Chauhan, J. 1. All these petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2000 passed by the Slate Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') disposing of a bunch of appeals and revisions, by which the Tribunal remanded the cases to the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (for short, 'the R.T.A.') for considering the cases afresh.2. The case has a chequerred history as there have been several rounds of litigation in respect of grant of same permits. There are groups of operators having conflicting interests. One group of permit holders claims that they have been operating on the inter-State route Hanumangarh to Dubwali via Sangaria falling within the territories of the States of Haryana and Rajasthan, since 16.3.1963. Their permits stood renewed from time to time by the R.T.A. and counter signed by the Competent Authority in the State of Haryana. Their permits were renewed even after commencement of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Ne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »