Rajasthan Court January 2004 Judgments
ishwar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3145; RLW2004(2)Raj1344; 2004(2)WLC263
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1.The four appellants in this appeal namely, Ishwar Singh, Rajendra Singh, Basti Rarn and Rang Rao have challenged the judgment dated October 30, 2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhun-jhunu whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:-Under Section 302/34 IPC Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fineof Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six MonthsRigorous Imprisonment.Under Section 341 IPC Each to suffer Simple Imprisonment for onemonth.Under Section 323/34 IPC Each to suffer Simple Imprisonment for sixmonths.Under Section 324/34 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for oneyear and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to furthersuffer three months Simple Imprisonment.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that informant Om Prakash (PW.3) submitted written report (Ex.P-11) to the SHO Police Station Khetri at camp Ganesh Pura on March 23, 1998 at 11.30 AM with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Dayal Vs. Shivcharan Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj118; RLW2004(3)Raj1389; 2004(1)WLC727
ORDERA.C. Goyal, J.1. This S. B. Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 17-9-1999, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur, while setting aside the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dholpur, passed on 20-2-1997, allowed Civil Misc. Appeal and dismissed the application of the objector-tenant filed under Order 21, Rule 36, CPC.2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the shop in question is located in the town Badi. The non-petitioner/decree-holder's (hereinafter referred to as the 'decree-holder') grandfather Jhinguria Ram and father Chhidda Lal were owners of this shop. According to the decree-holder, three shops including the shop in question were mortgaged by his grand-father and father with possession to Khacchi Lal Heera Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the first mortgagee'), on 31-3-1928 by registered mortgage-deed. Thereafter the shop was re-deemed and re-mortgaged on 27-4-1947 to Kalua Ram Badri Prasad (second mortgagee) and...
Tag this Judgment!Haricharan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2224; RLW2004(3)Raj1634; 2004(2)WLC394
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Matrimonial dispute that resulted into a criminal case under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, has been ultimately settled amicably and the complainant-wife did not want to continue with the criminal case. But Section 320, Cr. P.C. came in the way and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Kota vide order dated October 15, 2003 declined to recognise the settlement.2. It is well settled that while exercising inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C., it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. In B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : (2003 Cri LJ 2028), their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated thus (Para 14) :--'There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or tor...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Dass Singhi Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(NULL)615
ORDERB.M. Kotharj, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learnedCommissioner (Appeals) on 12-12-1995.2. The assessee has raised seven grounds in this appeal, but all those grounds relate to confirmation of addition of Rs. 33,333 made by the assessing officer in respect of undisclosed income as surrendered at the time of survey.3. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee's brother Shri Daulal Singhi allegedly surrendered an amount of Rs. 1 lakh during the survey on behalf of himself, his wife and his brother Shri Narayan Dass Singhi (appellant). The assessing officer also got the said statement of Shri Daulal Singhi recorded in survey signed by the assessee at the concluding part of the said statement. He submitted that the statement of Shri Daulal was recorded by coercion. Shri Daulal had made a representation before the learned CCIT and also DC (Admn.) after the survey. Moreover, the assessing officer has brought no mat...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Lal JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj524; 2004(1)WLC732
Parihar, J. 1. There is no dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as Gram Sevak in the year 1953. Thereafter he was promoted on the post of Panchayat Extension Officer w.e.f. 1.1.1965. Subsequently being selected on the post of Vikas Adhikari, the petitioner was posted as Vikas Adhikari in Panchayat Samiti Kathumar on 1.2.1980. The petitioner continued to work as Vikas Adhikari till his date of retirement, i.e. 30.9.1992. Having denied revision of pay-scale on the post of Vikas Adhikari and further pension and other retrial benefits on the basis of last pay drawn by him from the post of Vikas Adhikari, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayers, as referred above.2. The only defence as taken by the respondents in the reply has been that at the time of retirement, a disciplinary inquiry was already pending against the petitioner and subsequent to the retirement, a punishment of stoppage of 20% pension for five years was imposed on the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Supreme Metprods Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: [2004]55SCL614(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In this winding up petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of an order of winding up of the respondent-Company on the ground of its inability to pay Rs. 14,97,373.38 to the petitioner company. This amount is stated to be due of the cost of the carbon wire rods supplied to the respondent-company by the petitioner-company.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner has also filed a suit for recovery of this amount against the respondent-company and after filing of this petition the same has been decreed in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Court.4. In view of this fact, this winding-up petition does not survive. The reason is very obvious. The decree has been passed by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner for this amount and it can be recovered by execution thereof.5. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this winding-up petition fails and the same is dismissed with cost...
Tag this Judgment!Kusheshwar Mandal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ87Raj; 2004WLC(Raj)UC670
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the preparation of paper book is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated April 3, 2000. The appellant has raised an industrial dispute about termination of his services by oral order of the Assistant Engineer, Gulabpura with whom he was employed w.e.f. May 1, 1994, alleging that he has continuously served under the same employer for more than 240 days and he be deemed to be in continuous service in the establishment under the same employer for a period of one year and, therefore, his retrenchment could take place only in accordance with Sections 25-F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not otherwise.3. According to the claim petition filed by appellant as well as the reply filed by the respondents, it was clear that the appellant was employed as daily rated on work charged establishment under the Irrigation Department a...
Tag this Judgment!Kahtoon Begum (Deceased) Through Her Lrs Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj502
A.C. Goyal, J.1. All these three second appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1998 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur while dismissing three appeals affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), West, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 9.4.1997.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the suit shop was let out on 12.8.1961 at monthly rent of Rs. 25/- to the original tenant Sh. Chhote Khan by Jaipur Cloth Retailer Association (in short the Association). The Association vide registered gift deed Ex. 5 dated 20.2.1986 gifted this shop to Pushthi Margiya Vaishanva Mandal (in short the Mandal) under intimation to Sh. Chhote Khan vide a registered notice dated 25.2.1986. The Mandal vide registered sale deed Ex.1 dated 12.9.1986 sold this shop to the plaintiff-landlord Sh. Bhagwan Das for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/- under intimation to Sh. Chhote Khan vide registered notice dated 4.10.198...
Tag this Judgment!Anup Krishna Kaul Vs. Jagdish Swaroop Agarwal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj185; RLW2004(1)Raj534; 2004(1)WLC743
Goyal, J.1. The appellant-defendant No. 2 has preferred this first appeal against the judgment and decree of specific performance dated 2.4.1994 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer in civil suit No. 55/1983 (146/1980).2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit on 16.12.1980 against three defendants for specific performance of an agreement of sale of a house located at Ajmer executed in his favour on 24.7.1979 at Jaipur. The plaintiff's case, in brief is that Smt. Vishnu Maya Kaul-mother of all the three defendants by an agreement dated 24.7.1979 agreed to sell her house bearing AMC No. 41/32 situated at Meyo College Road, Ajmer to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The plaintiff on the same day paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- vide cheque to Smt. Vishnu Maya Kaul. The balance of the sale price was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar Ajmer at the time of registration of the sale deed on or before the first day of September, 1979. As per the ter...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1290; 2004(2)WLC398
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was placed on trial before, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarhbas District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 42/1998 on the allegations of robbery and murder. The learned Judge vide judgment dated Feb. 8, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as under:-Under Section 302 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to further suffer one yearRigorous Imprisonment.Under Section 394/397 IPC To suffer Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonmentand fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to furthersuffer, One Year Rigorous Imprisonment.Under Section 120B IPC To suffer Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonmentand fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to furthersuffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment.Under Section 3/25 Arms Act: To suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment andfine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer.Three Months Rigorous Imprisonment.All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. A Jweller Krishna Kumar was robbed and killed ou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »