Rajasthan Court November 2003 Judgments
Meena @ Hema (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Komal Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj77; RLW2004(1)Raj483; 2004(1)WLC544
Gupta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has held that the suit as framed is covered by Section 35(1) of the Court Fees Act, and therefore, the plaintiff should pay court fees accordingly. Obviously, if the court fee is not paid, the suit should be dismissed.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on a bare reading of Section 35(1) as a whole it becomes clear that the present is a suit, which is covered by Section 35(2), and not by Section 35(1).4. I may reproduce Section 35(1) as such, which reads as under:'Sec. 35 Partition suits.-(1) In a suit for partition and separate possession of a share in joint family who has been excluded from possession of such property, fee shall be computed on the market value of the plaintiffs share of the property.(2) In a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property or property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who is in joint possessi...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Raj)400; [2005]274ITR255(Raj)
B. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned counsel for parties.2. Admittedly, an appeal lies against the order impugned. The appeal was not filed because the same has become time-barred. The petitioner could file the appeal and pray for condonation of delay. It has also been urged that the order impugned has been passed after following the judgment of this Court which has been reversed by the Division Bench. This is a circumstance which requires merit at least for condonation of delay before the CIT(A).3. Accordingly, if any appeal is filed, then the learned CIT will sympathetically consider the question of condoning the delay in view of the fact that the order is based on a decision which has already been overruled.4. Consequently, this writ petition is not entertained and permission is granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the CIT(A).5. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1608
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 30-10-1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Sessions Case No. 41/87 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304. Part-II in place of Section 302, IPC and Section 323. IPC and sentenced him in the following manner :-----------------------------------------------------------Name of Convicted Sentenceaccused u/S. awardedappellant---------------------------------------------------------Shankar 304 Part-11, To undergo 41/2 yearsIPC RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 5 months' RI 323, IPC To undergo one month RIBoth the sentences were ordered to run concurrently,2. It arises in the following circumstances:--On 29-5-1987, PW-1 Mansaram lodged an oral report in the Police Station, Sadar, Dungarpur before PW-9 Jeetmal, SHO of that Police Station stating inter alia that his elder bro...
Tag this Judgment!Magna Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1693; 2004(2)WLC185
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant from jail against the judgment and order dated 2.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera in Sessions Case No. 30/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay of fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.2. By the same judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted another accused Hema for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.3. It arises in the following circumstances:-On 24.3.1998 at about 9:30 AM, PW20 Dhanna lodged an oral report (Ex.17) with the Police Station Bhadsoda District Chittorgarh before PW 19 Sumer Singh, SHO of that Police Station stating inter-alia that on 23.3.1998 at about 10:00 PM his brother Dalu S/o Pema, aged about 30 years, resident of Arniya (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') left the hou...
Tag this Judgment!Satya NaraIn Gupta Vs. Uco Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ858Raj
ORDERK.S. Rathor, J.1. The petitioner preferred this writ petition seeking writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside Charge-sheet dated March 3, 1988, order of punishment dated November 14, 1994 and order dated February 3, 1996 of the Appellate Authority.2. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Branch Manager in the respondent bank. A charge sheet dated March 3, 1988 was issued and an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations 1976. A memorandum of charge sheet was also served upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his detailed statement of defence. The disciplinary authority vide its order dated January 12, 1989 appointed Shri K.L. Sharma as Enquiry Officer to conduct the departmental enquiry.3. The Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry and submitted his findings on April 28, 1994. After receipt of the enq...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan Vs. Dr. Ganeshmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Raj105
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, against the Order of the learned District Judge, Churu, passed on the application filed on 25-8-1992, under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, revoking the Succession Certificate dt. 14-7-1992, granted in favour of the present appellant.2. The facts as appearing from the impugned Order are, that late Shri Phoos Das Swami was resident of Sardar Sahar, who had made a Fixed Deposit in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Sardar Sahar, for the sum of Rs. 30,000/- vide Fixed Deposit Receipt 34843, which was to mature on 26-9-1992, the original receipt was given to the present respondent. Likewise, the deceased had one Saving Bank Account No. 5095, having balance of Rs. 3750.16, and he was having original Pass Book. It Was also alleged, that the present respondent was the adopted son of Phoos Das, and he is the real son of the elder brother of the deceased and that the wife of Phoos Das and the applicant's (pre...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC664
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Meaningful question that emerges for consideration in the instant appeal is 'would non-compliance with the provisions of Section 276 or 275(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'New Code') nullify the evidence of the witness recorded at the trial2. This question arises in the circumstances set out below:'Appellants Kailash and Ram Karan were indicated before the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City/District Jaipur, for having committed murder of Hemlata. The learned Trial Judge vide judgment dated November 27, 1998 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : 1. Kailash:Under Section 302, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fineof Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffersix months'imprisonment.Under Section 498A, IPC to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonmentand fine of Rs. 500/- in default to furthersuffer three months' rigorous imprisonment.Both sentences were ordered to run ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2240
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.9.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, district Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner-Appellant Jai SinghUnder Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2500/-,in default of payment of fine, to furtherundergo simple imprisonment for oneyear.Under Section 307 IPC Imprisonment for seven years with a fineof Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine,to further undergo simple imprisonmentfor six months.Appellants Om Prakash and Balbir SinghUnder Section 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default of payment of fine,each to further undergo simpleimprisonment for one year.Under Section 307/34 IPC Imprisonment for seven years with a fineof Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine,each to further undergo simpleimprisonment for six months.2. The facts lead...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj428; 2004(1)WLC536
Mathur, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer dated 1.12.2000 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. 3000/-; in default of the payment to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that on 28.11.99 at about 10:45 A.M. appellant submitted a written report Ex. D3 at Police Station, Pokran stating inter alia that he had performed 'Nata' marriage with Sariya Devi two years back and he was living happily with her. On 27.11.99 after taking dinner they retired to their bed room. In the morning when he got up he found his wife dead. He suspected that she committed suicide by consuming poison. The police suspecting it to be a case of suicide informed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pokran to hold inquest. P.W. 12 Smt. Kalpna Agarwal, S.D.M., Pokran reached on the spot and inspected the site. The learned M...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: II(2004)DMC265; RLW2004(1)Raj464
Garg, J. 1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner Vijay Kumar (husband) against the order dtd. 8.5.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur by which the learned Judge in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending before him granted interim maintenance to respondent No. 2 Smt. Lovely @ Rs. 1000/- per month, be quashed and set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) Respondent No. 2 Smt. Lovely (wife) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court on 6.6.2001, Respondent No. 2 (wife) also filed an application for interim maintenance along with application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ii) From the order sheet dtd. 8.5.2002, it appears that on that date, respondent No. 2 (wife) filed some affidavits in support of application for interim maintenance and on the same day, the learned Judge, Family Court heard the arguments and granted interim maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »