Rajasthan Court January 2002 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.
Nirmal Kumar Vs. Sohanlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: 2003WLC(Raj)UC134
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application dated 7.4.2000 submitted by the appellant with a prayer that the legal representatives of Sohanlal be taken on record as their names were inadvertently not mentioned in the appeal and instead of name of legal representatives of Sohanlal, name of Sohanlal himself has been shown in the array of parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the suit was originally filed in the year 1983 and the suit was dismissed on 22.2.1991. The. appeal was preferred against the above judgment and decree dated 22.2.1991. The appeal was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Nathdawara and during the pendency of the appeal defendant-Sohanlal expired and an application Under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was submitted by the appellant- plaintiff himself on 22.5.1995 and the legal representatives of deceased-Sohanlal were taken on record. According to appellant inadvertently, Sohanlal has been impleaded as party re...
Puran Singh Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC279; 2002(3)WLN41; 2002(3)WLN41
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 29.3.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 115/97 by which he accepted the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered that the petitioner-husband would pay Rs. 400/- p.m. (Rs. four hundred only) as maintenance allowance to the respondent-wife with effect from 26.9.1997, the date of presentation of that application.2. The necessary facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows :-The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Jodhpur on 26.9.1997 stating inter-alia that she was married with the petitioner-husband on 22.5.1983 as per Hindu rites and Gona Ceremony took place six years back, but after that, on so many trivial matters, the petitioner-husband used to quarrel with her and before four years back, she was shunted out from her in-laws' house by the pe...
Kewla Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3077; RLW2003(1)Raj228; 2002(4)WLN111
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 8.6.87 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 9/87 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 304(II) I.P.C. in place of 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 4 years' R.I. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) On 3.10.86 at about 8.30 p.m., P.W. 1 Harkha Ram lodged a written report Ex.P/1 with the police Station Ramsar stating that enmity between the family of P.W.1 Harkha Ram and that of accused appellant was going on and many cases were also pending in the Court and, therefore, accused appellant wanted to cause harm to the complainant party. On 3.10.86, his uncle's son Dhura Ram (hereinafter referred to as deceased) went to jungle for the purpose of grazing 'Rewar'. At about 2.30 p.m., seeing the deceased alone, the accused appellant gave beating to the deceased with an ...
Hindustan Engineering Company Vs. Bhagwanlal Agrawal (deceased by L.R' ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj198
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By impugned order dated 27th Jan. 1999 the application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the defendant was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that defendant is seeking permission to produce secondary evidence with respect to an application alleged to have been submitted the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that on earlier occasion the trial Court summoned the record of the RSEB, Bhilwara and found that in that file the alleged application is not available. Therefore, the learned trial Court held that when there is no original application available in the record then the defendant could not have photostat copy of the original and it makes the documents suspicious.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court committed illegality in rejecting the application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, If the ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Methi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ2008; 2002(2)WLC607
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.5.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balotra (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,83,900 in favour of the respondents-claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and the insurance company.2. Aggrieved by the award impugned, appellant insurance company, the insurer has filed this appeal on two grounds; first the accident in question took place on 16.8.1988 and cover note was obtained by the respondent No. 11, the owner of the vehicle by concealing material fact that the bus No. 4665 met with an accident prior to the obtaining of the cover note. The second ground on which the present appeal is filed by the appellant is regarding limits of liability. According to Section 95(2)(b)(i) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as then it was applicable statutory liability of insurance company...
Sri Ganganagar Oil and General Mills Vs. the Rajasthan State Co-operat ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC464; 2002(2)WLN676
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. We do not find any merit in this case. The circumstances in which notice before admission was issued shows that the petitioner persuaded the court to issue notice only by making a statement undertaking to pay Rs. 10 lacs to the Bank against his dues. The order of issuance of notice reads as under:Issue notice as the petitioner undertakes to deposit Rs. 10 lacs with the respondent No. 3 within a period of six weeks from today. For a period of six weeks, the further proceedings in pursuance of the auction notice dated 6.9.2001 shall remain stayed.2. The petitioner Mills was aggrieved because of attachment and auction of his property in pursuance of the attachment for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,23,470.71/-, found to be due to the Ganganagar Central Co-operative Bank Limited, for availing the credit facilities from the bank. Apparently, it appears that the court was not inclined to entertain the petition as the petitioner was buy...
Chairman and M.D. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Bhol ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR562]; (2002)IILLJ342Raj; 2002WLC(Raj)UC195
Arun Kumar, C.J.1. These appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated December 12, 2000. The respondent is an employee of the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board (in short 'RSEB' hereinafter). He had approached the Labour Court under Sec0tion 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. His application was decided by the Labour Court which found in favour of the employer that the workman was not entitled to grant of advance increment of Rs. 10/- on his regular appointment with effect from April 1, 1974 and, therefore, the order withdrawing the special advance increment and recovery made in pursuance thereof from the workman was upheld. The application of the workman was rejected. However, before parting with the case, the Labour Court clarified that the order would mean that the salary of the workman shall be fixed at the minimum of the pay-scale of Rs. 370-10-450-12-570 with effect from April 1, 1974 and not on Rs. 380/-; but by getting regular increm...
Sukhdeo Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1975
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 6-11-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in criminal appeal No. 21/93 by which he partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Sections 377/511, I.P.C. in place of Section 377, I.P.C. and sentenced him to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further undergo 2 months S.I. in place of 2 years R.I. and the judgment and order dated 30-6-1993 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Anoopgarh was modified accordingly.2. It arises in the following circumstances :On 29-9-1992, PW 2 Mukhtyar Singh filed a written report Ex. P/l with the C.I., Police Station, Anoopgarh stating that accused petitioner had committed sodomy with his daughter PW 1 Nikki.3. On this report Ex.P/1, the police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/7 and started investigation.4. ...
Badri NaraIn Vs. Laxmi Gehlot
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1976; II(2002)DMC472
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner husband against the order dated 22.10.1992 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in Crimmal Case No. 420/80 by which he partly accepted the application filed by the respondent wife under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and ordered that the petitioner husband would pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only) as maintenance allowance to the respondent-wife and her daughter aged 12 years with the effect from 13.10.1998, the date of presentation of that application.2. The necessary facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows :The respondent wife filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C, before the Family Court, Ajmer on 13.10.1988 alleging inter alia that she was married with the petitioner-husband on 23.6.1978 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of that wedlock, on 13.4.1979, daughter, namely, Mamta was born and on 24.4.1988, another daughter Santosh was born, but unfortunately, Sant...
Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN693
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 2.8.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in criminal appeal No. 48/2000 by which the learned Special Judge upheld the conviction of the petitioner for offence Under Section 279 and 304-A I.P.C. passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, but he reduced the sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner as under: Section Sentence awarded Sentence reduced by Special by CJM, Bikaner Judge, SC and ST Cases, Bikaner 279 IPC 3 months' S.I. 3 months S.I. 304-A IPC 2 years' S.I. 1 year's S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further under go.... imprisonmentBoth the courts below ordered the sentences to be run concurrently.2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) On 4.3.1990 after receiving telephonic message, P.W. 8 Hari Singh ASI, Police Station Sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »