Rajasthan Court May 2003 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.
Arjun Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN158
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1.This second application for bail has been moved by Arjun Singh in the following circumstances:The anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner was allowed by this Court on 20.1.2003. After investigation, when the challan was filed in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sri Karanpur, the petitioner applied for regular bail but the same was dismissed by the said Court. However, Arjun Singh who was present in the Court, was not taken into custody. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 438 of the CrPC which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur on 28.3.2003. In these circumstances, this petition under Section 438 of the CrPC has been moved again to this Court.2. After considering the matter in detail, I find that unfortunately, both the lower Courts have acted in mindless fashion. There was no occasion to disallow the bail prayer which was made by the accused-person. There was no such condition...
Pankaj Khapra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN167
D.N. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for non-petitioner No 2, Smt. Sunita and learned Public Prosecutor.2. The instant transfer petition has been preferred requesting that Criminal Case No. 366/2001 arising out of FIR No. 478/2000 of Police Station, Pratapgarh under Sections 498A & 406, IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan be transferred to Alwar/Jaipur or any other place near to Delhi in the State of Rajasthan.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that looking to the convenience of the parties as narrated in Ground B of the petition, the case may be transferred from Pratapgarh. It was argued that no proper legal assistance is available to the accused-petitioners on that place as the case relates to the daughter of an advocate practicing at Partapgarh. It was further argued that looking to the grounds mentioned i...
K.K. Maheshwari Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN542(Raj)
Y.R. Meena, J.This appeal is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 4-1-1999. The appeal has been admitted in terms of the question on which the appeal in case of Ram Jas Nawal v. CIT (2003) 131 Taxman 525 (Raj) has been admitted.2. This assessee is son of Ram Jas Nawal and the appeal of assessee and his father Ram Jas Nawal and his brother K. G. Nawal have been disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order as the issue involved in the question is similar as that of the case of Ram Jas Nawal (supra) and the appeal of Ram Jas Nawal has been dismissed.3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Jhanwar has admitted that basic facts and issue involved are similar as that of in case of Ram Jas Nawal (supra), he does not want to add anything in his arguments put forth in the appeal of Ram Jas Nawal.4. Following the view taken in the appeal of Ram Jas Nawal's case (supra) and the reasons given therein, we found no merit in this appeal.5. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed....
Poona Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN162
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The appellants Poona Ram, Nema Ram and Hema Ram all sons of Bhura Ram and Ram Prakash have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34, IPC by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District, Pali dated 4.8.2000 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 & 325/34, IPC.2. The second appellant Nema Ram along with his brothers Poona Ram and Hema Ram stood trial on the charge of murder of Babu Lal the brother of his wife P.W. 3 Smt. Morki the star prosecution witness. The incident took place in two parts; firstly at the house of the accused persons in village Bera Shiv Sagar, Chandaval. The second and fatal incident took place outside the residence of the deceased in village Vyaso-Ki-Dhimdi. It is alleged that P.W.3. Mst. Morki was suspected to have committed theft of Rs. 300-400/-...
Rajesh Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj994; 2003(4)WLC202
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 17.5.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to join the duties in pursuance of order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex. 1) passed by Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) by which the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on compassionate ground after death of his father.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:i) That the petitioner's father was appointed with the respondents and he died while in service. Thereafter the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after death of his father.Note: It is strange that date of death of the deceased has not been mentioned in the writ petition.ii) Further case of the petitioner is that through order dtd. 10.8.88 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Superin...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Shiv Raj Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1002; 2003(3)WLC738
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order did. 21.3.2002 by which the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 2) ordered exparte proceedings against the petitioners and the order dtd. 1.11.2002 (Annex.4) passed by the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 2) by which the application of the petitioners for setting aside exparte proceedings was dismissed be quashed and set aside.2. The facts as put forward by the petitioners are as under:i) That the State Government vide notification dtd. 25.7.2001 made a reference to the respondent No. 2 (Labour Court, Jodhpur) to the effect whether termination of services of respondent No. 1 (Shiv Raj Singh) with effect from 1.6.93 was proper or not.ii) That on receipt of the reference, a case was registered and notices were issued to the parties.iii) That on 4.12.2001, Prem Cha...
Chandan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2530; 2003(1)WLN677
Tatia, J.1. Brief common facts of all these writ petitions are that the respondents No. 2 issued notices inviting tenders for grant of exclusive license for sale of liquor for different areas in the State of Rajasthan, for the year 2002- 2003. In response of said N.I.T., the petitioners submitted their tenders along with requisite earnest money. The petitioners are successful bidders and got the exclusive license for sale of liquor for the area for which they gave their bid. As per the conditions prescribed for the grant of the license for the sale of liquor, the petitioners were required to furnish cash security equal to 17 percent of the exclusive license amount within period of 10 days from the date of publication of acceptance of bid by affixing the information of acceptance of the bid. The petitioners were given two options for furnishing the security, one, by way of depositing the entire amount as mentioned above or by depositing 10% of license amount instead of 17% (after adjust...
Anil Bhandari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2523; 2003(4)WLC403
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the United Indian Insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 1) at its Jodhpur Branch till he took voluntary retirement on 19.11.1997 after completion of more than 20 years of service. The petitioner's service conditions are governed by the General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revenue of Pay Scales and other conditions of Service of Supervisory, clerical and subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974 as amended time to time. The principal scheme was published by Notification No. S.O. 326 .(E) dated 27.5.1974. For these conditions, approval was accordance by the Central Government. It is relevant to mention here that the said scheme was amended about 30 times from 1974 to 1999 which is clear from the explanatory memorandum, copy of which is placed in this file at page No. 50. By amendment dated 27.8.1998 benefit of Special Allowance was granted to Class III and C...
Anjali @ Devi and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC511; RLW2004(1)Raj1; 2003(3)WLC645
Goyal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by the accused petitioners is directed against the order dated 11.5.02, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, forwarded the complaint of complainant respondent No. 2 under Sections 494, 406, 120B 1PC, for investigation as provided under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. with a further prayer to quash the F.I.R. No. 132/02 and the investigation done so far.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant Raj Kumar filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, on 8.5.2002 against Smt. Anjali alias Devi, her brother Bhagwan Ramani and Smt. Kamla with the everments that having come to know from Kamla about the present petitioner Smt. Anjali @ Devi that she is a widower, he got married with her in March 1998, in Sindhi Gurudwara according to Sindhi rites and rituals but now he has come to know that Smt. Anjali was previously married to Kishore resident of Bhopal, Indra Kumar resid...
Jogendra Singh @ Jogendra Kumar Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC25; RLW2004(1)Raj14; 2003(3)WLC593
Goyal, J.1. Both the petitions arise out of the same case, hence both are decided vide common order2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant respondent No. 2 Phool Singh, father of deceased Smt. Renuka, submitted a written report at Police Station, Mansarovar, Jaipur on 17.6.99, with the averments that his daughter Renuka was married to Yogesh on 10.2.1998. He spent about a sum of 5.50 lacs including cash amount of Rs. 2.11 lacs for Maruti Car. After some time of the marriage, Yogesh and his parents started mental and physical harassment to his daughter for further demands of dowry. On making inquiry from Jogendra Singh, father-in-law of Renuka, he raised a demand of Rs. 2 lacs and assured that on making the payment of this amount, she would not be harassed by any one. A sum of Rs. one lac, thereafter was given to Jogendra Singh and he agreed to pay one lac after some time but all the three accused persons continued to harass and torture his daughter. It is also averred t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »