Rajasthan Court April 2004 Judgments
Luna Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2139; 2004(3)WLC437
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Both the aforesaid petitions are being decided by this common order as they are inter linked with each other.S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 276/20022. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners with the prayer that the order dated 15.3.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sardarsahar in Criminal Case No. 145/2001 by which he read over the contents of the offence under Sections 353, 426, 186, 504 IPC to the accused petitioners and since the same were denied by the accused petitioners, the case was fixed for recording evidence, be quashed and set aside.3. It arises in the following circumstances:A civil suit was filed by one Inder Chand against Godawari Devi for ejectment from the shop in question and during the pendency of that suit, the respondent No. 2 Suraj Bhan (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was appointed as Commissioner by the Court on 13.5.1998 and in pursuance of the order of the Court, the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2286; 2004(3)WLC568
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the added accused petitioners Govind Ram and Bhagu Ram against the judgment dated 14.5.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana by which he dismissed the revision petition filed by the present added accused petitioners and upheld the order dated 24,1.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu by which cognizance for the offence under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 324/149, 326/149 IPC and 3(1)(x), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, 1989 was taken against the present added accused petitioners alongwith other accused persons.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The respondent No. 2 Duda Ram (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) gave a written report at Police Station Ladnu on 28.8.2000 stating inter-alia that there was enmity between his family and the family of Gyana Ram and sons of Gyana Ram had threatened his family members of dire consequences. It was further alleged that ...
Tag this Judgment!Jahanghir Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj26; 2004(4)WLC62
Mathur, J.1. Twelve appellants namely A-1 Jahanghir Khan, A-2 Barkattulla, A-3 Yunus, A-4 Ayub, A-5 Jakir, A-6 Josab Khan, A-7 Manohar Khan, A-8 Lukman Khan, A-9 Saddiq Khan, A-10 Farooq Khan, A-11 Noor Mohd. and A-12 Ibrahim Khan have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur dated 30.11.1999 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under: -(i) 302/149 I.P.C. Appellants A-1 to A-6 and A-8 to A-12 have beensentenced for imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment tofurther undergo one years' simple imprisonment.(ii)307/149 I.P.C. Appellants A-1 to A-6 and A-8 to A-12 have beensentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/-; in default ofpayment to further undergo seven months simpleimprisonment.(iii) 326/149 I.P.C. Appellants A-1 to A-6 and A-8 to A-12 have beensentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default ofpayment to furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Vs. Vishnu Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj2043; 2004(3)WLC586
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is the second appeal by the defendant- tenant against the concurrent judgments and decree of eviction.2. Briefly narrated the facts are that the original landlord Smt. Mehtab Devi filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that the defendant Sh. Jagdish Prasad is the tenant in a Thadi' situated outside her house at Jaipur w.e.f. 8.5.1969. The eviction was sought the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting and nuisance.3. The defendant in written statement while admitting the tenancy pleaded that he is the tenant for the last 25 years. All the grounds of eviction were denied by him.4. During the pendency of the suit, the landlord Smt. Mehtab Devi died, hence her legal representatives were brought on record.5. Issue were framed. Evidence was recorded. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated 27.5.1997 decided issue No. 1 of Sub-letting, issue No. 2-A of default in favour of...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. District Permanent Lok Adalat ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj327; RLW2004(4)Raj2629; 2004(4)WLC151
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7-10-2003 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 5925/2003 by which he has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition which had been filed by the petitioner-appellant herein Life Insurance Corporation challenging the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat Jhalawar, wherein the Life Insurance Corporation had raised a dispute that the policy holder was guilty of suppression of material fact at the time when he took the life insurance policy from the appellant corporation. It was their case that the respondent No. 2 Suresh Kumar who is the son of the de-ceased-policy-holder-Lal Chand Mali was not entitled to the benefit on the life of the insured, as his late father was guilty of suppression of material fact before the Life Insurance Corporation since he had suppressed the fact about his disease and therefore the beneficiary i.e. the son of the insured who is the re...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ420Raj
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated May 18, 1998 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.2. The respondent No. 2, Narain Ram, who was employed as Chowkidar with the appellant on August 1, 1985 was discharged from service w.e.f. October 2, 1986 by notice dated September 3, 1986.3. The said termination of respondent-workman from services was made subject-matter of reference under the Industrial Disputes Act where Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated April 27, 1993 found that the notice served on the respondent was not for a period of one complete month before his termination was made effective and it was also found that at the time of retrenchment neither the amount of retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman nor he denied to accept if it would have been offered to him. Thus, finding that the retrenchment was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial D...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Bapna Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1714; 2004(3)WLC19
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. The petitioner was employed by the State Government as Social Scientist in the Medical & Health Department. On 13.7.1998 and 3.8.1998 he suffered to heart attacks. He was admitted in the SMS Hospital for treatment. The Principal of SMS Hospital constituted a medical board comprising of Dr. K.S. Yadav, Dr. R.K. Saxena and Dr. S.K. Chuttani. Two members of the medical board were of the opinion that the petitioner should undergo Thallium Studies And Related Investigations at Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi. The recommendation of the board, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-'He needs further evaluation by stress thallium studies and related investigations and Coronary Angiography and subsequent Angiography/CABG, if indicated. As these facilities are not available in Rajas-than State, so he may be referred to Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi.'The petitioner, pursuant to the medical boards's recommendation, proceeded to Delhi and got himself admitted i...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Maillikarjun Marbles and Mines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Financial ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj212
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 9-4-2002 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the demand notice /letter dtd. 23-3-2001 (Annex. 12) by which demand was raised by the respondent No. 2 (Branch Manager, RFC, Rajsamand) stating that due to oversight mistake interest at the rate of 19.5% was charged, but as per the documents, interest should have been charged @20.5% and the petitioner-firm was directed to deposit the overdues upto 31-3-2001 and the order /letter dtd. 4-5-2001 (Annex. 14) issued by the respondent No. 2 (Branch Manager) by which demand of Rs. 2,18,945/- as over-dues as on 30-4-2001 be quashed and set aside and further the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the Interest Reduction Scheme (IRS) afresh and the respondents be further directed to execute necessary documents for applying reduced rate of int...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3469
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 15-7-2000, whereby learned CJM, Udaipur has returned Final Report No. 202/99 given in FIR Case No. 307/1999, Police Station, Surajpole.2. It appears that the SHO, Police Station, Surajpole forwarded the final report in FIR Case No. 307/1999 to the Court of learned CJM, Udaipur. However on 15-7-2000, the SHO, Police Station, Surajpole submitted an application to the effect that the final report be returned to him as the same was summoned by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur. The learned Judge straightway granted the application and returned the final report. It is submitted by the learned counsel that once the final report has been submitted by the police, the same cannot be returned simply on the request of the Investigating Officer for perusal by the higher police authority.3. I find substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel. It is well settled position of la...
Tag this Judgment!Dana Ram and ors. Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj307
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 24-11-2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, Judgment dated. 16-10-2003 (Annex. 13) passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge. Parbatsar (respondent No. 2) in civil Misc. Appeal No. 47/99 by which the learned Additional Dist. Judge upheld the order dated 29-9-1999 (Annex. 6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (J. D.3, Makrana (respondent No.l) by which the learned Civil Judge (respondent No.l) by which application of the plaintiffs (respondents No, 3 to 10) was allowed against the defendants -petitioners and the plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 3 to 10) were allowed to use 8 ft. wide way which crosses Khasra No. 401/2 and 401/3 and goes ahead to Khasra No. 409/3, be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :(i) That the respondents Nos. 3 to 10 (plaint...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »