Rajasthan Court February 2005 Judgments
Kudiwal Typing Institute and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC87
K.C. Sharma, J.1. In the instant petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 22.8.200 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur (appellate Court) dismissing application of the petitioners moved under Section 210, Cr.P.C. for staying hearing of the appeal. The facts necessary for the decision of the instant petition in short are that challenging the judgment of conviction dated 27.7.1999 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the petitioners for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City which was transferred to the appellate Court for disposal. During the course of hearing of the appeal on 16.6.2000, the petitioners filed an application under Section 210, Cr.P.C. with the request to stay hearing of the appeal till the disposal of the case pending with regard to the FIR lodged by them against complainant. Learned...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Khan Vs. Surgyan Maheshwari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC282; 2005WLC(Raj)UC419
K.C. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After recording of his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and closing of defence evidence, he moved an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for bringing on record three Xerox copies of the receipts dated 20.6.2000, 20.7,2000 and 20.9.2000 and to examine witness to prove that payment in lieu of cheque No. 606506 had already been made to the complainant. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the sides, vide its order dated 9.2.2004 has dismissed the application. Challenging this order of the Trial Court, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the revisional Court, which has also been dismissed on 22.9.2004 giving liberty to the petitioner to file written arguments. Challenging both the orders, the petitioner has filed the instant petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.2. Having heard learned Counsel for petitioner I have ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Saxena Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1493
Gyan Sudha Misra, J. 1. The petitioner-herein Shri K.K. Saxena has filed this writ petition praying for modification or for setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.9.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT') Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by which the learned Members of the Tribunal were pleased to hold that the applicant was entitled to be considered for the post of Assistant Engineer (for short A.En.) after he was found medically fit for the post, by a duly constituted Medical Board. The Tribunal thereafter disposed of the application of the petitioner with a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant-petitioner herein for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer against any future vacancy. 2. In order to clarify the position it may be stated that the petitioner was functioning as Chief Inspector of Work (for short CIOW) in the year 1994 and was posted at Jaipur. It appears that some vacancies were available for selection to th...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal @ Mangilal Vs. Bhoori Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: I(2005)DMC643
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 397, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur (for short, 'the Family Court') in Criminal Misc. Case No. 744 of 1999, whereby the Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- to respondent No. 1 Smt. Bhoori Bai; Rs. 400/- to respondent No. 2 Miss Jasoda; Rs. 350/- to respondent No. 3 Miss Rasoda and Rs. 300/- to Miss Varsha.2. The facts, relevant and necessary for disposal of this criminal revision, in a nut shell, are that respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging therein that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 27.4.1990 as per Hind...
Tag this Judgment!Jattu Ram Surendra Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Raj)68; 2005WLC(Raj)UC438
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this writ petition, a challenge is given by the petitioner to proposal to launch prosecution under Section 276B of IT Act, 1961, for failure on part of petitioner to deduct tax at source in terms of Section 194A of the Act of 1961. Notices impugned are placed on record as Annexs. 13, 14 and 15, all dt. 27th March, 1991. An amendment was introduced to Section 276B of the Act of 1961 which came into force on 1st April, 1989. Section 276B as it was prior to 1st April, 1989, reads as under:'276B. Failure to deduct or pay tax.--If a person fails to deduct or, after deducting, fails to pay the tax as required by or under the provisions of Sub-section (9) of Section 80E or Chapter XVII-B, he shall be punishable,--(a) in a case where the amount of tax which he has failed to deduct or pay exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine;(b) in any other case...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.), Sardar Shahar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj216; RLW2005(2)Raj1064; 2005(2)WLC722
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a suit No. 21/77 filed by Panna Lal & Others against Heera Ram & Others for declaration and possession was decreed on 11.10.1984. According to the petitioner, the land is not falling within the boundary specified in the decree for which the decree for possession was passed by the Trial Court.3. On 13.12.2004, the Assistant Nazir of the executing court, in pursuance of the directions of the executing court, came to the petitioner's house and put the locks on the main door. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither party in the original suit nor was made party in execution proceedings nor any application was moved by the decree holder to dispossess the petitioner from the property. When the house of the petitioner was locked, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 151 C.P.C. narrating all facts and prayed that the petitioner's property is not falling i...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Rathore Vs. the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1128; 2005(2)WLC736
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. A notice was published in the newspaper on 14.12.2000 for giving distributorship for the LPG Gas by the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner's claim is that she also applied for the LPG Gas dealership for the Makarana area situated in the District Nagaur, which was reserved for the Army Personnel (Woman). According to petitioner, the said LPG distributorship was obtained by the respondent No. 3 by furnishing false information to the Indian Oil Corporation. The allegations of the petitioner are that; (i) she did not disclose that she was Director of one School situated at House No. 117 and 118 at Sunder Nagar, Jaipur and she is earning from the said school, (iii) the respondent No. 3 was LIC agent since last so many years and was earning income from that agency, (iii) she submitted false affidavit, did not disclose income in the affidavit, The TDS certificate issued by the LIC, shows that the respondent No. 3 was earning at ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalita Vs. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj293; RLW2005(2)Raj1230; 2005(2)WLC751
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 1.2.2005 by which the executing court in a petition filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC proceeded to decide; (i) whether the petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC be decided after allowing parties to lead oral evidence or (ii) whether the court should proceed to decide the petition finally on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the parties. The executing court in detail order held that there is no need to allow the parties to submit oral evidence and the matter can be decided on the basis of evidence already available on record, but after hearing both the parties.3. The apprehension learned counsel for the petitioner-objector is the executing court without finding out what are the issues involved in the dispute held that there is no need to allow evidence of the parties and thereby the executing court has judged the matter without formulating any point...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bhan Vs. Rameshwar Lal Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1841; 2005(3)WLC728
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is the second appeal by the defendants tenants.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction in September 1989 with the averments that late Shri Bhagwati Prasad was a tenant in one room, one kothari, kitchen and bath room in House No. 24/273 situated in Chand Baori, Ajmer. Monthly rent agreed upon was Rs. 21/-. The original landlord was Shri Ganga Sahai. The plaintiff purchased this house from Shri Ganga Sahai vide registered sale-deed dated 20.7.1982 and the defendants-wife (since deceased) son and daughter of the original tenant Bhagwati Prasad were informed. Eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, reasonable and bonafide requirement for plaintiff's son Sandeep and alternative accommodation acquired by the tenants.3. Vide written statement having admitted the tenancy, all the grounds of eviction were denied.4. Issues were framed. Evidence was rec...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Smt. Dropadi Bai (Since Deceased) Through Lr Smt. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1642; 2005(3)WLC278
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is the second appeal by the defendant- tenant.2. The plaintiff Smt. Dropadi Bai instituted a suit for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that the defendant- appellant is the tenant in the suit shop (go-down) on monthly rent of Rs. 250/- for last so many years. Eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide requirement.3. Vide written statement having admitted the tenancy the grounds of eviction were denied. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1 (South), Kota vide judgment dated 26.4.2004 decided the issues of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide requirement, comparative hardship and partial eviction in plaintiff's favour and thus decreed the suit. It is made clear that the plaintiff Smt. Dropadi Bai died during the pendency of the suit, hence Smt. Kaushalya Devi was impleaded as legal representative. First appeal filed by the defend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »