Rajasthan Court September 2001 Judgments
Dr. Subhash Kholia Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC19
J.C. Verma, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 590/1998 of Police Station Bassi, District Jaipur. The petitioner is being tried for the offence under Sections 498A and 306, I.P.C.2. The petitioner was husband of the deceased Dr. Indra married to petitioner in the year 1995. A son and a daughter were also borne out of the wedlock of petitioner and Dr. Indra. Dr. Indra had committed suicide on 13.11.1998 and had also killed her minor son and daughter. The complaint was made by the father of the deceased to the effect that the petitioner was in the habit of asking of money and harassing his wife. The FIR was recorded on the next day i.e. 14.11.1998.3. The petitioner moved the application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, which was rejected on 27.6.2001. It is stated that the petitioner is a reputed doctor and so was his wife deceased Dr. Indra. There was no scarcity of money with either of them. The police had als...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshrimal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj601; 2002(1)WLN632
Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. As per the facts of these cases the passengers were travelling in Bus No. RRY 3435 on 7th Feb., 1993 and this bus was driven by non-applicant No. 3, Om Prakash rashly and negligently and the bus turned resulting into the death of passengers Shripal and Kalia whereas Nathi, Devli, Paru, Kanhaiyalal, Kesari Mal and Magna were injured. The bus was owned by non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Pushpa Devi. This bus was insured with non-applicant No. 2, Insurance Company who is appellant in all these appeals.3. In claim case No. 102, deceased was Shripal and claim was for Rs. 9,19,000/-. The claim case No. 147/93 was filed by wife of deceased Shripal and two children and mother of the deceased Shripal. The claim No. 102/93 was also filed by the claimant's wife and her two minor daughters for the death of the same person, Shripal. In claim case No. 102/93 claim of Rs. 3,92,500/- was claimed by the claimants and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- whi...
Tag this Judgment!Julian D.J. Harry Vs. P.K. Khanna
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN17
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Perused the impugned order and the record. The suit was filed by the plaintiff appellant for specific performance of contract dated 10th December, 1980 on 14.1.1994. In the original suit as well as in application for injunction, the original owner P.K. Khana was impleaded as defendant No. 1 whereas subsequent purchaser by registered sale deed from defendant No. 1 which was registered on 10th January, 1994 was impleaded as defendant No. 2. But at the request of the plaintiff appellant, proceeding against the defendant No. 1 P.K. Khanna was dropped on 18th January, 1994 in civil miscellaneous proceedings for grant of injunction. The original non-applicant No. 2 before the trial court filed the reply to the injunction application. The trial court appointed the Commissioner for sight inspection and thereafter hearing the parties dismissed the injunction application of the appellant plaintiff by order dated 24th January, 1994 hold...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC193
Sharma, J. 1. The appellants were indicted before the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi in Sessions case No. 124/93 for having committed murder of Foriya. They were found guilty, thus, convicted and sentenced as under:-Ramesh Chand : Under Section 302 I.P.C. Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, Under Section 376(2) I.P.C. Life imprisonment with fine ofRs, 100/-. Rajmal @ Raju & Bajrang Lal : Under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, Under Section 376(2) I.P.C. Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. The prosecution story is woven like this. Hajari Lal P.W. 2 Administrator of Gram Panchayat Baswada forwarded a written report to Police Station Lakheri on 30.1.1993 through one Shri Ram Niwas for taking into custody a dead body that was lying on the road between Bada Kheda and Baswada. Upon the said written report, Police Station Lakheri initiated proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC325; 2002(2)WLN382
Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar camp Suratgarh in Criminal Revision No. 36/98 by which he accepted the revision filed by respondent No. 2 to 10 and set aside the order dated 10.11.98 passed by the learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in FR No. 326/97 pertaining to FIR No. 521/97 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against respondents No. 2 to 10 on FR No. 326/97 pertaining to FIR No. 521/97 for offence under Sections 148, and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) For murder do Gorkha Ram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), a report was lodged by the present petitioner against respondents No.2 to 10 in the Police Station Suratgarh on 13.10.97 stating that respondents No. 2 to 10 had committed murder of the deceased and that report was registered as FIR No. 521/97 for offe...
Tag this Judgment!Santokh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1410
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Santokh Singh against the judgment and order dated 6-11-87 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 42/85 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 307 and Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced him as under :------------------------------------------------------Name of Convicted SentenceAccused under Section Awarded------------------------------------------------------Santokh Singh 307, I.P.C. 4 years' R.I. anda fine of Rs. 100in default to fur-ther undergo 15days' S.I.Santokh Singh 326, I.P.C. 3 years' R.I. and afine of Rs. 100 indefault to furtherundergo 15 days'S.I.Both the sentences were ordered to run con-Currently------------------------------------------------------2. It arises in the following circumstances :i) On 20-1-85 at about 4 a.m. an oral report Ex. P/7 was lodged by P.W. 4 Ajmer Singh in th...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Yashpal Mendiratta Vs. the State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, M ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN417
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 21.6.2001 (Annexure-9) when he has once again been transferred from General Hospital, Alwar to CHC, Kotkasim in place of Dr. Prem Mittal, respondent No. 4 who had been ordered to take over at General Hospital, Alwar from Kotkasim.2. This case has chequered history of transfers. The petitioner is a Junior Specialist (Medicines). He was initially transferred on 12.3.1999 from Kishangarhbas to Genera] Hospital, Alwar vide order dated 12.3.1999, copy of which is attached as Annexure-1, After about one year four months, he was displaced from General Hospital, Alwar to CHC, Reni. One Dr. S.K. Yadav had replaced him vide order Annexure-2 on 22.7.2000. The petitioner was of the opinion that there was no administrative exigency for transferring him on 22.7.2000 to Reni and, therefore, had challenged the order dated 22.7.2000 by filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal being appeal No. 1361/2000 w...
Tag this Judgment!Sarla Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj301; I(2002)DMC409; 2002(1)WLC178
Naolekar, J.1. Petitioner Sarla Sharma has challenged insertion of Rule 22 in Chapter-IV of the Rajasthan (High Court) Family Court (Amendment) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules of 1994') vide Notification No. Gen/XV/(a)/3/87/709 dated 11.4.1996 on the ground that the Rule 22 framed by the High Court is ultra vires being contrary to the scope, object and mandate of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1984').2. The Act of 1984 has been framed for setting up the Family Courts for the settlement of family disputes, where emphasis is laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results and adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence is eliminated. The Law Commission in its 59th report (1974) had stressed that in dealing with disputes concerning the family the court ought to adopt and approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable ...
Tag this Judgment!Kajod Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN1
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 18.6.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhiiwara accused appellant for the offence under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to under go RI for ten years and a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two years.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 29.4.1990 at about 8.15 AM, PW 2 Ram Singh, SHO, Police Station Kachhola lodged a written report Ex. P/l with C.O., Thana Shakargarh District Bhiiwara stating inter-alia that upon instructions of Superintendent of Police, Bhiiwara at about 1.00 AM, he went for Nakabandi at Tiraha Amargarh, where PW 7 Dilip Singh and PW 1 Ajij Mohd. Constables posted at Police Chowki Amargarh also joined him and they were also patrolling at that place. It was further stated in the report that thereafter PW 2 Ram Singh alongwith PW 7 Dilip Singh and PW 1 Ajij Mohd....
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal and anr. Vs. Driver Ranbir Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN500
Tatia, J.1. This is an appeal against the award dated 19.2.1986 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in Claim Petition No. 198/1981 by which the claim petition of the legal representatives of Deepak Jayantilal Raja, Shri Jayanti Lal and Smt. Vanita, who are father and mother of the deceased-Deepak, was decided by the Tribunal awarding Rs. 56,000/- in favour of the claimant-appellants and against non-applicant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and rejected the claim against non-applicant Nos. 4, 5 & 6, along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on the condition that in case the amount will be deposited within three months before the Tribunal to be paid to the claimants, otherwise the claimants will be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum. The costs of the litigation was awarded Rs. 300/-.2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased-Deepak Jayantilal along with deceased-Rhanwar Lal were travelling in taxi-car No. RST 6171 from Ahmedabad to Udaipu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »