Rajasthan Court June 2004 Judgments
Salim Vs. Indira
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC292; 2004(4)WLC217
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on similar set of facts, same relief has been claimed in both the petitions, on joint request of Counsel for the parties both the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2002 passed by the Family Court, Jaipur by which respondent wives have been allowed Rs. 1,500/-per month as maintenance in their respective claims.3. It is a strange case of two real brothers who have married two real sisters on the same day. They have also alleged to have divorced their respective wives on the same day, time and place exactly in the same manner. As per the averments made by the wives before the Family Court, the marriage taken place as per Hindu rites which has been controverted by the petitioners asserting their marriage having took place as per Muslim rites. The Family Court, on the basis of evidence on record, came to a finding that the marriage had taken place as per Hindu rite...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4320; RLW2004(4)Raj2588; 2004(4)WLC99
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-10-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 46/ 2003, whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC and sentenced him as under :--Section 363 IPC -- Five years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.Section 366 IPC -- Seven years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.Section 376 IPC -- Ten years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two month's simple imprisonment.All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of convictio...
Tag this Judgment!Rampal Chouhan Vs. Marwar GramIn Bank and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2700; 2004(3)WLC514
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd July, 2003 dismissing the writ petition.2. The appellant was dismissed from service under the provisions of Regulations 30(l)(f) of the Marwar Gramin Hank (Staff) Services Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1980) having been found guilty of the charge of misconduct leveled against him while he was posted at Sarnau Branch of the respondent Marwar Gramin Bank in District, Jalore. A complaint came to be filed by some of the loanees against him alleging inter alia that he demanded bribe for providing them relief under the Agricultural Rural Bank Relief Regulations. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by Shanti Lal Sharma, who recorded the statements of the Manager, Field Supervisor and other staff members and also recorded the statements of the complainants. After conducting the preliminary enquiry, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj2366; 2004(5)WLC181
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In these petitions the constitutional validity of Section 3 of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 has been challenged. As per Section 3 of the Ordinance, sub-section (2-B) has been inserted in existing Section 30 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. The impugned provision provides for contingency where before expiry of the term of the elected managing committee of any society, a new committee is not constituted. In such event, it enables the Govt. to direct the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to appoint a Government Servant as Administrator to manage the affairs of the society till a new committee is constituted provided that no member of the committee replaced by an administrator under this sub-section shall be deemed disqualified under Sub-section (5) of Section 28.2. Under the parent Act before amendment also an Administrator could be appointed to take over the management of a society by removing the existing committee under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Lata Parihar Vs. R.L. Parihar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj296; RLW2004(3)Raj1729
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Head the learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against that judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11th May, 2001 rendered in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 703/2000.3. This appeal has arisen raising a question of jurisdiction of the District Judge to entertain the application/suit for injunction filed by the present appellant against her father and brothers. The appellant, who is unmarried daughter of respondent No. 1 R.L. Parihar and sister of respondent No. 2 Pratap Singh and respondent No. 3 Shiv Ram Singh, filed the application seeking injunction to restrain them for interfering her right to reside in ancestral property held by the defendants-respondents. Though, it was captioned as application Under Section 3 read with Section 20(3), 23 and 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act of 1956') the application, read as a whole, relates claim of the appellant to her right to reside in the ancestral property, for the tim...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Keir Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1827; 2004WLC(Raj)UC695
F.C. Bansal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the case diary and material on record.2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that fatal injuries have not been attributed to the petitioner. Charge sheet was earlier filed against 11 co-accused out of which four have been acquitted and seven have been convicted for offence Under Section 302/149 IPC. The sentence awarded to these seven convicts has been suspended by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dt. 09.05.03 in D,B. Cr.App. No. 466/03, therefore, this bail application be allowed.3. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this bail application.4. Considering the aforesaid submissions and after perusal of the evidence collected during investigation and statements of all the witnesses recorded during trial against co-accused persons and judgment of the trial court dated 12.3.2003 and the order dt. 9.5.2003 passed by Division Bench of this Court, I am inclined ...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Pukhraj and ors. Vs. Prem Kishan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2358; 2004(3)WLC591
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is the second appeal by the tenants against the concurrent judgment and decree of eviction. The parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a civil suit for eviction in February, 1977 with the averments that the suit premises situated in the market of Beawar is on rent with the defendant No. 1-firm having the defendants No. 2 to 4 as its partners. Eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff and his family, substantial damage to the premises and nuisance giving the details of each ground of eviction.3. Vide written statement having admitted the tenancy, all the grounds of eviction were denied, During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 2 Pukhraj expired, hence his legal representatives were brought on record.4. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed. Evidence of both the parties w...
Tag this Judgment!Parasnath Granite India Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2424; [2006]144STC271(Raj); 2004(5)WLC331
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This petition is filed challenging the order of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 1.1.1998 allowing the revision filed by the respondent, Assistant Com- mercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Raniwara, by setting aside the orders of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated 31.3.93 and restoring the orders of the ACTO dated 16.11.90 and the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 7.1.91.3. These orders relate to levy of penalty Under Section 22-A (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1954').FACTS:4. The facts which emerge from the proceedings are that on 1.11.90 at zero hours (12.00 AM), at the check post Abu Road, vehicle No. GJ 02/T 5721 carrying the goods was checked. On making a demand, the driver of the vehicle furnished GR No. 1 dated 31.10.90 issued by M/s Delhi Bombay Road lines, Abu Road. The consignor of the goods was shown to be M/s Sumit Marbles, Abu Road. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhapa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2653; 2004(3)WLC632
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Bhapa Ram from jail against the judgment and order dtd. 27,5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhinmal by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 month's S.I.2. It may be stated here that since accused appellant preferred this appeal from jail and nobody was representing the accused appellant, therefore, this Court by order dtd. 5.8.2003 appointed Shri K.L. Joshi as amicus curiae in this case to represent the accused appellant in this appeal.3. It arises in the following circumstances:i) That on 2.10.2001 at about 4.30 p.m., P.W.3 Mohan Lal lodged a written report (Ex.P/7) before P.W.9 Rupa Ram (SHO Police Station, Jaswantpura) inter alia stating that on 2.10.2001 at about 2.45 p.m., when he was sitting in the office near...
Tag this Judgment!Shyama Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2128; 2005(3)WLC408
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Shyama Ram @ Shyam Lal against the judgment and order dt. 17.8.2002 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Shri Ganganagar by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 year's R.I.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-i) That on 21.7.98 at about 4 p.m. PW.3 Bhagi Ram gave Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4) to PW.9 Shaganlal (SHO, Police Station Gharsana Camp Rohi) inter alia stating that in the morning his brother Sahi Ram and sister Maya were working in the filed and at about 1 a.m. his mother Kishni (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and his father accused appellant Shyama Ram also came there along with food and thereafter they took food and at about 1 p.m. Sahi Ram and Maya had left the place and when he himself star...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »