Rajasthan Court September 2004 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.
Hanuman Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj855; 2004(4)WLC596
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Kishangarh Bas District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 162/1998 for having committed murder of Jhutar Mal. Learned Judge vide judgment dated August 31, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant thus:-Under Section 302 IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer Three Years Rigorous Imprisonment. Under Section 506 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment. Under Section 201 IPC:To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Four Years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. As per the prosecution story the informant Kamla Devi (PW.1) wife of Jhuthar Mal (now deceased) submitted a written report at Police Station Mandawar on June 29, 1998 with the averment...
Laxmi Steel Industries Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)42; IV(2005)BC125; RLW2005(1)Raj654; 2005(1)WLC658
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Both these criminal leave to appeals arise out of disputes between the same parties and involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. Both these criminal leave to appeals under Section 378(4) are directed against the order dated 07.01.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (in short the 'Trial Court' hereinafter) in Complaint Cases No. 141/01 and 140/01 respectively, whereby the Trial Court acquitted accused second respondent Surendra Pal Singh of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act' hereinafter). Aggrieved by the order of acquitted impugned, the complainant seeks leave to appeals to this Court.3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the accused second respondent. It was a complaint case by the private firm ...
Dhanpat Ram and ors. Vs. Indra Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj51; 2005(1)WLC145
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21st Oct., 2003 by which the first appellate court after allowing the amendment of the plaint set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 1st Sept., 2001 and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for deciding the suit afresh after framing the issues de novo.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below has committed serious illegality in allowing the amendment application because of the reasons that the appellants want to take absolutely contradictory plea by amending the plaint from the pleas, which they took originally. It is also submitted that the amendment has been sought by the plaintiff after inordinate delay and in view of the proviso added by amendment of the Civil Procedure Code to the Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the amendment can be allowed by the court upon finding that even after due diligence, the party could not raise the matter before ...
Prakash Chandra Vs. Hari Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj185; 2005(1)WLC50
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - plaintiff against the judgment dtd. 27.1.2004 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Parbatsar in Civil Appeal No. 1/2003 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner - plaintiff and affirmed the order dtd. 10.1.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Makrana in Civil Case No. 101/2000 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner - plaintiff for restoration of the suit. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: i) That the petitioner - plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents -defendants for permanent injunction and in that suit, the date was fixed as 29.5.2002 for filing written statement on behalf of the defendants - respondents, but on that date, i.e. on 29.5.2002, since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner - plaintiff including his counsel, the suit was dismissed in default for non-prosecution. i...
Bhupender Sharma and ors. Vs. District and Sessions Judge
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj382; 2004(4)WLC704
B. Prasad, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking appointment as Lower Division Clerks pursuant to an advertisement issued by District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated 10.05.2001. By the said advertisement, applications were invited. After scrutiny of applications, competitive examinations were held and it is claimed that the petitioners were declared successful. Having been declared as successful, petitioners were entitled to face type test which was also conducted and a list of selected candidates was prepared.2. In the notification dated 10.05.2001 it was stated that there are six posts of LDCs vacant and in future, some vacancies are anticipated to occur. In the notification, this was also stated that out of these posts which have been advertised, three posts are reserved for Scheduled Caste and three for Scheduled Tribes. This was also stated that the posts may be filled up from other methods viz, promotions from IV th class and by transfer et...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Bhawani Shanker and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR761]; (2005)ILLJ1011Raj; RLW2005(1)Raj226; 2005(1)WLC181
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 3.4.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner in appeal No. 90/95 by which he partly accepted the appeal of the petitioners and modified the order dated 6.5.1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, Bikaner (for short 'the Authority') in the manner that he maintained that portion of the order dated 6.5.1995 granting wages of Rs. 99125/- to respondent No. 1 Bhawani Shanker, but set aside that portion of the order dated 6.5.1995 granting compensation of Rs. 99125/- to respondent No. 1 Bhawani Shanker.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-The respondent No. 1, Bhawani Shanker was employee of the petitioners and his services were terminated by the petitioners vide order dated 31.12.1988 and thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed claim before the Labour Court, Bikaner and the Labour Court, Bikaner through judgment and award date...
Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj902; 2005(1)WLC71
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since the controversy involved in the instant appeal attracts the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the J.J. Act'), we proceed to dispose of the matter finally at the orders stage.2. As per the prosecution story, the appellant was indicted in criminal case registered at the police station Beawar on October 12, 1998. He was arrested and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Beawar. Charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 460/34, 459/34, and 324/34 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited 36 documents. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. No defence witness was, however, examined. On hearing the final submissions, ...
Kishna Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR616]; RLW2006(2)Raj898
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Prayer of the petitioners, who are incarcerated in Central Jail Ajmer, for transfer to the Open Air Camp was rejected on the ground that they are above 60 years of age. Since relief sought in these petitions is identical, they are taken up together for disposal.2. As per the facts stated in writ petition No. 3480/2004, as many as thirteen members of petitioner's family, including Jagan Nath, the son of the petitioner were convicted and sentenced. They subsequently were transferred to Sampurana Nand Open Air Camp Sanganer Jaipur. Jagan Nath, the son of the petitioner, is willing to take the responsibility of the petitioner. An affidavit has been filed by Jagan Nath in the form of undertaking. Similarly in writ petition No. 3481/2004 petitioner's son Jagdish and in writ petition 3482/2004 petitioner's son Ram Dayal have filed affidavits to the same effect.3. In the returns to writ petitions, the respondents averred that in view of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›