Rajasthan Court December 2005 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.
Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Narandra Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR282(Raj); RLW2006(2)Raj1193
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Udaipur dated 29.5.1999 making the arbitration award dated 31.3.1999 a Rule of Court upon an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.3. The arbitrator passed an award in favour of the applicant Shri Narendra Kumar Intodia respondent No. 1 in the present appeal on 31.3.1999 against some supplies made by him to Avas Vikas Sansthan, Udaipur and when the award was passed on 31.3.1999 an application under Section 17 of the Act was filed, upon which the impugned order dated 25.9.1999 making the same a Rule of Court was passed by the Court below.4. This appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board through its Resident Engineer on the ground that the said Avas Vikas Sansthan was itself wound up by the State Government on 15.3.1999 and, therefore, no award could be passed against the said Avas Vikas Sansthan, a Co-operative Society on 31.3.1...
Devendra @ Sonu and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj407; 2006(1)WLC726
V.K. Bali, J. 1. Shivraj and Devendra in a trial conducted against them for intentionally causing death of Tejprakash have since been held guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's R.I., vide order of conviction and sentence recorded on 28.6.2001. Whereas challenging the said order, Devendra @ Sonu has filed Appeal No. 418/2001, Shivraj has filed Appeal No. 419/2001.2. Occurrence leading to the death of Tejprakash, as per prosecution version, had taken place on 29.2.2000 at 8.10 p.m. FIR with regard to the incident was lodged on the same very day at 10.45 p.m. The first information was lodged by Ramesh (PW-4), brother of the deceased, who got recorded therein that on the eventful day at about 8 p.m. his younger brother had gone outside to take medicine from the doctor. Ten minutes thereafter, 10-12 persons of their colony came to them and Jhabar Choudhary of STD PCO told him...
Laxman Singh Solanki Through Lr Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj702
Shiv Kumar Sharma1. Heard.2, The appellant Laxman Singh Solanki now deceased in the instant special appeal has impugned the order dated December 19, 1996 of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition was dismissed.3. Having pondered over the rival submissions and on careful scrutiny of the material on record, we notice that the order dated March 21, 1984 of the Tribunal had attained finality. We also find that learned Single Bench in the impugned judgment instead of issuing direction to implement the order of the Tribunal observed that it was not within the competence of the Tribunal to pass the said order. This observation in our opinion is contrary to the ratio indicated in Gajanan L. Parnekar v. State of Goa 1999 AIR SCW 3244, wherein their Lordship of the Supreme Court indicated thus:--(para 7)It is not disputed before us that the issue before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 261/96 was a limited one, confined to the grant of consequential benefits. The observations made...
N.S. Sisodia Vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj703; 2006(2)WLC81
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. While deciding contempt petition learned Single Judge directed the appellant thus--Either allot saline plot within one month to Shri Ashok Kumar BansalAdvocate, or suffer civil jail for one week.It is against this direction that the instant appeal has been held.2. Contextual facts depict that on November 24, 1983 a notification came to be issued inviting applications for allotment of Saline Plots in Kuchaman Ring Area which were to be allotted in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Saline Areas Allotment Rules, 1970. The respondent Sh. Ashok Kumar Bansal, Advocate, submitted application for allotment of plot in Kuchaman Salt Area. When the application of respondent was not considered, he preferred the writ petition seeking allotment of the plot in his favour. Meanwhile another notification dated February 26, 1986 came to be issued withdrawing the earlier notification dated November 24, 1983. therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on Nove...
Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj794
V.K. Bali, J.1. Ankit Bansal, a child of four years, studying in nursery, as per prosecution version was done to death by the appellant Kailash Bansal, real brother of father of the hapless child. Put to trial, the offence committed by him was held established vide judgment recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Ajmer dated 15.3.2002 vide which he has been held guilty for offence Under-Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RL for three months.2. Prosecution in its endeavour to secure conviction against the appellant, relied upon statement made by PW-26, accomplice of the appellant in the commission of crime who turned approver and circumstantial evidence details whereof shall be given in the forthcoming paragraphs.3. In this appeal filed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 15.3.2002 learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that...
Mahaveer Prasad and anr. Vs. Satya Narayan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj83
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. It will be worthwhile to mention here a few facts about the case. It appears from the plaint allegations that the plaintiffs/appellants, on the basis of patta in their favour which was issued in the Samwat year 1939, filed a suit for injunction against Pokar Mai, Ami Chand, Shyam Lal, Mangi Lal and Municipal Board, Nohar which was decreed by the trial Court on 1-4-1977 restraining the Municipal Board, Nohar from allotting any land out of pattasud land of the plaintiffs. However, despite this decree, according to the plaintiffs, said Pokar Mal, Ami Chand, Shyam Lal and Mangi Lal encroached upon part of the plaintiffs' land and according to the plaintiffs, for this, the Municipal Board, Nohar helped those persons in encroaching upon the plaintiffs land, therefore, the plaintiffs submitted execution petition against the above mentioned persons. The present defendant Satya Narayan, who was not party in the earlier suit, als...
Ram Avtar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC438
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 4.12.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar whereby the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC. For the former offence he was sentenced to one month of simple imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 500 and seven days of simple imprisonment in default thereof; for the latter offence, to two years of simple imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 2,000 and one month's simple imprisonment in default thereof. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 25.6.2005 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1. Sikar has upheld the judgment dated 4.12.2003.2. According to the prosecution, on 9.8.1999, one Mohammad Akhtar submitted a written report before Mohammad Isaq, A.S.I. that at 9.00 a.m. when he was taking his cart on National Highway No. 11, along with his four-year-old son, Irfan, at that time a bus coming from Sikar hit his son who was wal...
NaraIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj429
Khem Chand Sharma, J. 1. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment and order dated 25.5.1984, by which the learned trial Court has convicted appellant Jagdish for offence under Section 307, 447,323 and 325/34 IPC. The remaining appellants, namely Narain Singh, Kanwar Pal and Gurudayal have been convicted for offence under Sections 307/34, 325/34, 447 and 323 IPC. The maximum term of sentence awarded to each of the appellants is two years.2. On 1.11.1982, an FIR came to be registered on the basis of Parcha Bayan of one Dhan Singh. It was alleged that on the day of incident at about 3 PM when Lallu Ram was collecting 'Guwar fodder', accused Jagdish and Kanwarpal lifted the fodder and placed it before their goats. Lallu Ram asked them not to do so. In the meantime, injured Moharpal also came at the spot along with his cart. Accused jagdish and Kanwarpal started be labouring Lallu Ram by lathis. It was alleged that Moharpal and two accused namely Narain and Gurudayal...
Mukti Lal Vs. Badri Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj569
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated February 12, 2001 of the Additional District Judge No. 9 Jaipur City whereby the Lordship's first appeal was allowed, judgment and decree dated August, 16,1996 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No, 5 Jaipur City were set aside and landlord's suit for ejectment of tenanted shop was decreed.2. Contextual facts depict that the plaintiff landlord (for short landlord) let out 'the shop in question to the defendant tenant (for shot tenant) on July 1,1978 at monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. The rent was increased to Rs. 150/- on January 1, 1982. The landlord on July 17, 1986 filed a suit for eviction,and arrears of rent with the averments that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the rent since April 1,1985. It was further pleaded that shop was reasonably and bonafidely required for Dinesh Kumar, the son of land lord who had completed his graduation and if the shop was not vacated the la...
Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1373; RLW2006(1)Raj538
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 7.10.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (for short, 'the Appellate Court' hereinafter), whereby the appeal filed by the delinquent juvenile through his father under Section 52 of the Act against the order dated 1.10.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur on an application under Section 12 of the Act declining to release the juvenile delinquent on bail, was dis-' missed. Aggrieved by the orders impugned, the juvenile delinquent has filed the instant criminal revision petition.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the orders impugned passed by the Courts below.3. The petitioner has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board and is facing trial for the offence under Section 376, IPC in a case ari...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »