Rajasthan Court December 2005 Judgments
Dharmendra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC430; 2006(3)WLC408
Dalip Singh, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 135/2000 has been filed by the accused appellant Dharmendra against the judgment dated 8.3.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 1/1998 convicting the appellant Dharmendra for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appellant Dharmendra was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He was further sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under Section 201, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 100/2000 the accused appellant Madanlal was convicted of the offence under Section 201, IPC by the judgment dated 8.3....
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC885; 2006(2)WLC187
V.K. Bali, J.1. By this common order were propose to dispose of three connected criminal appeals as the same emanate from a common impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 25.3.2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur, District Jaipur, whereas DB Criminal Appeal No. 573/2003 has been filed by Bajrang Lal @ Lala, Narsi Lal and Hanuman, DB Criminal Appeal No. 620/2003 has been filed by Om Prakash and DB Criminal Appeal No. 1026/2003 has been filed by Suresh Sharma. Appellant Bajranglal @ Lala has since been held guilty under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment. He was also convicted under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Kumari (Smt.) Vs. Umrao Devi and ors. (Smt.)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj152; RLW2006(1)Raj458; 2006(1)WLC397
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Suit instituted by Kapoor Chand Jain (since deceased) against Sugan Chand Jain and Munna Kumari for declaration as null and void the gift deed dated September 9, 1959 executed by Sugan Chand Jain in favour of Munna Kumari was dismissed by the learned trial court on May 22, 1973. Civil Regular First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the decree of the learned trial court was allowed on March 7, 1990 by the learned First Appellate Court reversing the findings of the trial court and holding that although the gifted property was self acquired property of sugan Chand Jain, the gift deed was executed by him under the undue influence therefore it deserved to be declared as null and void. The defendant Munna Kumari in the instant second appeal has assailed the findings of learned First Appellate Court.2. At the time of admission of instant appeal following substantial questions of law were formulated:(i) Whether the learned First Appellate Court has set aside th...
Tag this Judgment!indu Mishra (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Kovid Kumar Gaur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj117; I(2007)DMC427; RLW2006(1)Raj501; 2006(2)WLC327
Harbans Lal, J.1. Since, these two civil appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arise out of common judgment & decree dated 23.9.1996 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in Case No.22/1993, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The relevant facts are that Kovid Kumar Gaur, the respondent-husband was married to appellant Smt. Indu Mishra on 25.11.1989 at Ajmer as per the Hindu rites and customs but soon thereafter their marital relations got strained and the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 for divorce on the ground that the appellant- wife was living in adultery who had deserted him of co-habitation with her for over 2 years. It was further averred that the appellant-wife along with Bheema Ram Choudhary perpetrated cruelty upon him of co-habitation with her for over 2 years. It was further averred that the appellant-wife along with Bheema Ram Choudhary perpetra...
Tag this Judgment!Neelesh JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2151; RLW2006(1)Raj653; 2006(2)WLC214
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Accused of offence under Section 376(g) IPC, wanting to defend his liberty and honor, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for seeking the production of certain documents which were available with the police, but which the prosecution chose not to file with the charge sheet However, vide order dated 22.8.05, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before us.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.9.04, the prosecutrix's father lodged a report a Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur. However, in the said report he did not claim any fact with regard to sexual exploitation of his daughter, Miss. Reena Sharma by the accused petitioner and by others. Subsequently, the prosecutrix lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others before the Mahila Thana and the Police Station, Murlipura, wherein she alleged sexual exploitation by them. On the basis of the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Kuldeep Dhankar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)ARBLR81(Raj); RLW2006(2)Raj1074; 2006(2)WLC302
Harbans Lal, J.1. This civil special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been preferred from the order dated December 4, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the order dated 17.3.2001 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur making the award of the sole Arbitrator as rule of the court with certain modifications has been upheld and the appeal has been dismissed.2. The relevant fact are that an agreement was executed on 8.10.1989 between Kuldeep Dhankar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Claimant') and the appellant-Union of India for publishing the English Edn. of Jaipur Telephone Directory for the year 1987, 1988 and 1989. The trouble between the parties started when the non-claimant in its communication dated 22.12.1988 communicated that the Directories sent by the claimant on 21.12.1988 were not being accepted. The core controversy between the parties is reflected from the communication dated 9.1.1989 sent by...
Tag this Judgment!Xlo United Clutch Products Ltd. Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj686; [2007]78SCL240(Raj); 2006(1)WLC629
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Instant appeal impugns the order dated July 28, 2000 of the learned Company Judge whereby the appellant company was ordered to be wound up. The appellant company has challenged the winding up order mainly on the ground that the learned Company Judge should not have acted upon merely on the opinion given by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction for short BIFR and it ought to have applied its own mind for the purpose of arriving to a decision on winding up of the company.3. Having scanned the material on record we notice that the appellant company had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6127/97 challenging the order of the BIFR recommending winding up of the company. In the said writ petition an application seeking permission to deposit the sum of Rs. 5.67 lacs with the ICICI Bank was sought. Learned Single Judge vide order dated November 10, 2004 dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj688
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Under the discretionary powers provided by Rule 296 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, the State Government appointed Madan Mohan Sharma and Dharmendra Kumar Sharma (MMS and DKS) on the post of Teacher Grade III in the year 2000. The persons who were more meritorious than MMS and DKS filed writ petitions seeking their appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III and quashing the appointment of MMS and DKS. Learned Single Judge vide order dated February 12, 2001 struck down Rule 296 and quashed the appointment of MMS and DKS. The prayer of the meritorious persons for appointing them on the said post was also declined. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge that these 73 appeals have been filed.2. Contextual facts depict that on May 25, 1996 the posts of Teacher Grade III were advertised by Zila Parishad Sawai Madhopur wherein it was stipulated that the selection process will be held in terms of the Circular dated July 24,1995 issued by the...
Tag this Judgment!Saint Meera Brotherhood Society Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj698; 2006(1)WLC677
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. SMB Society, appellant herein, though seeks to set aside the impugned order of learned Single Judge on various grounds, the main point that has been canvassed is that the order reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can by its silence render it virtually impossible for this Division Bench to perform the appellant's function in adjudging the validity of the order.2. Having closely weighed the impugned order we find no substance in this submission that the order is non-speaking and non-reasoned.3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant society by making following observations:--There is no substance in the writ petition. The order of the tribunal is well reasoned and is passed in accordance with law and the same does not require any interference by this Court. The tribunal has rightly reached to the conclusion that there is non compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Champawat Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj871; 2006(2)WLC385
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The case of the petitioner is that in the first instance, under Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 vide promotion order dated 21.6.1978, the petitioner was promoted and appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forest on purely temporary basis for a period of six months from the date of taking over charge or till regularly selected candidates in accordance with the method prescribed under the aforesaid Rules are available whichever is earlier. This appointment was under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962. Thereafter D.P.C. for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest was convened for the vacancies of 1978 in July, 1983 in compliance of judgment of Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal and on the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forest against the vacancies of 1978.3. The case regarding respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 and about which there ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »