Rajasthan Court November 2005 Judgments
Rahis Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj257; 2006(1)WLC738
V.K. Bali, J.1. Harbhan on 6.6.2002 went from his home to sell vegetables in the market of Govindgarh. No trace of him has been found till date.2. Rahis and Natthi Singh, appellants herein, were tried Under Section 364A IPC - kidnapping for ransom. Section 365 IPC - kidnapping or abduction with an intent to secretary and wrongfully confine a person and Under Section 384 IPC - for extortion. Resultant trial culminated into their conviction Under Section 364A read with Section 120B IPC for which they were sentenced to life as also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for six months. They were also held guilty Under Section 365 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years as also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for a period of six months. They have also been held guilty Under Section 384 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years as also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Nathu Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC453; RLW2006(1)Raj316; 2006(1)WLC156
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The claimants - appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment/award dated 8.10.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Ajmer in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 53 of 1983, whereby the claim application filed by the claimants-appellants was dismissed.2. The claimants-appellants filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer in respect of death of Kanha, who died in motor accident, took place on 11.2.1983. The claim application was filed against the driver and owner of vehicle Nathu Lal and Prem Kumar respectively and the National Insurance Company Limited.3. The driver Nathu Lal and owner Prem Kumar filed their joint reply to the application for compensation, wherein they contested the application and submitted that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the vehicle. The monthly income of the deceased was also denied. In para No. 6 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Lrs. of Hurji and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj417
Govind Mathur, J. 1 By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 29.5.1999 passed by the District Judge, Udaipur making a proclamation of vesting of property with State under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1956). The petitioner has also given challenge to the proceedings initiated under the proclamation dated 12.7.1991 made by the Additional Collector, Udaipur under Section 6 of the Act of 1956.2. The facts in brief are that one late Shri Kaliya who was having Khatedari of agricultural land in his name in Khasra No. 12 measuring 25 Bighas 17 Biswas. The land aforesaid was alleged to be in possession and also under active cultivation of the petitioner after death of Shri Kaliya. The Additional Collector, Udaipur registered a case under the Act of 1956 and issued a proclamation as envisaged under Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 6 of the Act of 1956. According to the petitioners, the proclamation so made was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj273; 2006(1)WLC722
V.K. Bali, J.1. Appellants Mathuralal and Mohanlal were tried with 19 of their co-accused for intentionally causing murder of Lal Singh and causing injuries to number of persons. In the resultant trial whereas, 19 co-accused of the appellants were acquitted, appellants Mathuralal and Mohanlal have been held guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. This order of conviction and sentence was passed against them by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2) Jhalawar and it is against this order that the appellants have filed this joint appeal.2. In the context of limited controversy involved in the case it will not be necessary to give facts in entirety. The brief facts which thus need a necessary mention reveal that the occurrence lading to death of Lal Singh and injuries to others had taken place at 7.00 A...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bharos Kharwad Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj768; 2006(1)WLC317
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant special appeal has been filed challenging the order dated October 16, 2001 of learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the appellant seeking reference of the dispute in regard to his termination was dismissed.2. We have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record.3. It appears that the appellant had worked as Helper in the office of Superintending Engineer, Field Machinery Division, CAD Chambal Workshop Kota from April, 1984 to July 31, 1988. After the termination the appellant raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer Kota, who sent its failure report on June 3, 1994. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated July 12, 1995 declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on the ground of delay. Learned Single Judge also dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the claim of the appellant could not have been rejected on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Bhatia Vs. Poonam Bhatia and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj128; I(2006)DMC667; RLW2006(1)Raj612; 2006(1)WLC648
V.K. Bali, J. 1. Sudarshan Bhatia, born and brought up in the State of Rajas-than, but stated to be a Canadian citizen, died on 21.4.1989 in Germany leaving behind considerable movable and immovable properties. Poonam Bhati his wife and Smita Bhatia, minor daughters, said to have been born out of the wedlock of Sudarshan Bhatia and Poonam Bhatia, successfully sought succession certificate with regard to the movable properties of deceased Sudarshan Bhatia, details whereof have been given in the application under Section 372 of the Indian succession Act itself as the same was allowed vide orders dated 6.12.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Whereas Surendra Bhatia brother of Sudarshan Bhatia resisted grant of succession certificate to Poonam Bhati and her daughter Smita on the basis of Will dated 17.4.1989 (Ex.A.l) said to have been executed by Sudarshan Bhati, his sister resisted the same on the ground that movable properties owned by Sudarshan Bhatia were made from...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj770
Shiv kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant, who was a Constable, placed on trial before learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City for having hurled obscene words at a young girl Laxmi. Finding those words offensive to the chastity and modesty of girl, the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated March 17, 1986 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 294, 341 and 509 IPC. Partly allowing the appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City vide judgment dated December 13, 1990 although confirmed the conviction of the appellant, released him on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the condition that appellant would not repeat the offence in future and observe peace for three years.2. A look at the material on record demonstrates that after the Magistrate convicted and sentenced the appellant, the Superintendent of Police Jaipur City vide order dated July 2, 1986 dismissed the appellant from service. However, the DIG Police Jaipur Range set asi...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Saxena and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj772; 2006(2)WLC65
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since the order dated August 18, 2003 of learned Single Judge is under challenge in both these appeals, we proceed to decide them by a common order.2. The appellant V.P. Saxena, after his retirement from Government Service in the year 1992 was recommended for Heart Surgery in All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) New Delhi. However due to strike of Resident Doctors in AIIMS from February 7, 1999 the appellant, in the emergent circumstances, had to undergo the Surgery in Escorts Hospital, New Delhi on February 23, 1999. When reimbursement of medical expenses was refused the appellant filed the writ petition, which came to be decided on August 18, 2003 with the following directions:-After having carefully considered the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the denial of the relief as claimed by the petitioner, is wholly unjustified. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled for reimbursement u...
Tag this Judgment!Matlub Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1102; RLW2006(1)Raj5; 2006(2)WLC67
Harbans Lal, J.1. The instant application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') which has been filed by complainant-applicant Matlub seeks cancellation of bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. to non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur vide his order dated 1.9.2005 in Bail Application No. 380/2005 arising out of FIR No. 154/2005 PS Mantown, Sawaimadhopur for offences under Sections 143, 148, 323, 447, 307 and 302 IPC.2. The un-disputed facts are that the non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested on 17.5.2005. They were produced before the learned Magistrate on 18.5.2005 who remanded them to police custody upto 23.5.2005 on which date they were remanded to judicial custody. After investigation the challan was filed against them alongwith others on 16.8.2005. No application for bail on their behalf was pending before the court on that date. The bail application was moved on 23.8.2005 which was ultimately a...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1196; RLW2006(1)Raj514; 2006(1)WLC798
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Both these petitions are filed by the petitioner under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 5.9.2005 (in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1223/2005) whereby the trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act and order dated 11.7.2005 (in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1224/2005) whereby the trial court rejected the petitioner's application moved under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for recalling witness Jaipal, P.W.6 for cross- examination. Both the impugned orders are passed in Sessions Case No.2/2005, arising out of C.R. No. 412/2004, P.S. Raisinghnagar registered for offence under Section 341/302, I.P.C. The decision on S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1224/2005 will dispose of both these petitions, therefore, 1 gather the facts from Petition No. 1224/2005.2. The facts of the case indicate that the case was fixed before the trial Court On 25.4.2005 for prosecution evidence and, on that day, Shri Devendra Singh Ro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »