Rajasthan Court August 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.
Dr. (Mrs.) Maya Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1547; 2002(4)WLC693; 2002(2)WLN376
Garg, J. 1. This Cr. Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused petitioners against the order dated 19.1.93 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara by which he accepted the application of respondent No. 2 (complainant) dated 26.2.91 under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-i) The facts involved, if true, are alarming and show low one can sink for selfish ends. Briefly recapitulated the relevant facts are that Km. Saubhagya Goel (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant (respondent No. 2)) submitted a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara on April 6,1983 against the five accused persons viz. Kumari Madhu Mehra, Smt. S.R. Wadhera, Smt, Maya Bansal, Mr. P.R. Parekh and Mr. R.C. Mehra for offence under Sections 120B, 149, 166, 417 and 468 I.P.C. It was alleged that the complaint is a blind person in her late 20s. After her selection by the Rajasthan Public Service ...
Balak Ram Vs. Bageshwari Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN514
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed on record a report obtained by the appellant from the Tehsildar (LR), Anoopgarh by which the injunction application of the appellant was dismissed by the trial Court.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in possession of the land in dispute and his possession is required to be protected as the land in dispute was subject matter of the agreement to sell in favour of the appellant and agreement to sell was executed on 19th March, 1983.3. According to learned Counsel for the appellant the appellant was in continuous possession of the land in dispute and there is no proof in favour of the respondent for possession of the land in dispute with respondent. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to protect his possession and the respondent has no right to evict and dispossess the appellant from the land in dispute.4. The trial Court took note of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›