Rajasthan Court February 2005 Judgments
Kamla (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Harbhajan Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj288; RLW2005(4)Raj2237; 2005(3)WLC475
N.P. Gupta, J.1. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant, on the authority of the Full Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Jamuna Bai (Smt.) and Ors. v. Chhote Singh and Ors., reported in 2004 (2) AJR 210, and an interim order passed by this Court on 7.4.2004, in Lalit Kumar Gelara v. Softtax and Ors., SBCMA No. 353/97, that in view of provisions of Order 41 Rule 14(4) of the civil Procedure Code, service of unserved respondents be dispensed with, as they remained absent before the Trial Court.2. I have considered the submission, and find, that the order in Lalit Kumar Gelara's case, simply proceeds on the Judgment in Jamuna Bai's case (supra), and therefore, I have gone through the Judgment in Jamuna Bai's case, and despite all my earnest efforts, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the proposition propounded by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in Jamuna Bai's case. In para No. 9 thereof, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 14(4) have been interpreted in ...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj470; 2005WLC(Raj)UC292
Suresh Chandra Singhal, J.1. This Criminal revision application has been directed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated dated 24.10.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 74/1993, 46/1992 confirming the judgment dated 02.11.1992 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar in Cr. Case No. 97/1982 by which he has convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Herein after referred to as the 'Act of 1954') and sentenced him to under 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to suffer three months simple imprisonment.2. To prove the case against the accused petitioner, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst has opined in his report (Ex.P9) that the sample is adulterated as it does not confirm the prescribed standard. He has not mentioned that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shariff Khan Vs. Rajasthan State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1022
K.S. Rathore, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction to declare the Rule 48-C and 49-B as invalid and void. Besides this, the petitioner also prayed to quash the notification dated 25.1.1995 issued by the State Election Commission as being invalid and void and to quash the order dated 1.2.2005 issued by the District Election Officer (Panchayat) being without jurisdiction, illegal, improper and void and further seeks direction directing the respondents to count the votes of the poll for office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Garhajan of the poll held on 31.1.2005.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at about 8 p.m. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaman informed that as per the directions of the District Collector, Bharatpur, counting would not be held at Tehsil Office, Kaman. At about 10.00 p.m. The SDM, Kaman informed that the Collector, Bharatpur has ordered not to conduct the counting as the re-poll will be held. The order has been passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Girraj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1665; 2005(2)WLC599
Jitendera Ray Goyal, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 17.4.2001 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur convicted the accused appellants Girraj, Makadya @ Hari Ram Radha Kishan and Morpal Under Section 302, 325 and 324 IPC and sentenced them as under:All the accused appellants.Under Section 302 IPCImprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months;Under Section 325 IPCR.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- to each of them; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 324 IPCR.I. for one years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- to each of them; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The relevant facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that PW-1 Vishnu Sharma submitted a writt...
Tag this Judgment!Col. Raghveer Singh Choudhary Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1851
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner been an ex-armyman filed an application under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), before the District Magistrate, Alwar for eviction of respondent No. 2 from his house. The application was filed on 24.8.2000. After service of notices, an application under Section 16(6) of the Act was filed by respondent No. 2 seeking leave to defend on 21.12.2000. It appears that various documents were filed by both the sides to prove their ownership on the land in dispute before the District Magistrate. It was only on 17.7.2004 the District Magistrate, for the purpose of ascertaining the legal value and further explanation as to under what circumstances the documents were issued by the concerning Departments in favour of two persons, made UIT, Alwar; Municipal Council, Alwar and Land & Building Tax Department, Alwar, as party to the application and notices were issued accordingly. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Chhagan Lal Sood and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1523
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3.5.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jaipur on the review preferred by the petitioner-Union of India against the earlier order dated 8.7.1999 which was final in nature.2. The only controversy which was raised before the Tribunal by the respondent-applicant was that he was entitled to be granted temporary status from 29.11.1989 in view of the fact that he had served continuously for 240 days in each calender year and the said averment having been found to be correct, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent, granting him temporary status from 29.11.1989. The petitioners-Union of India thereafter filed a review petition before the Tribunal against the case of the respondent and submitted that in fact the respondent had not completed 240 days in the year 1,988-1989-1990 and, therefore, the temporary status could not have been assigned to him from the year 1989. He,...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Addl. District and Sessions Judge ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj246; III(2007)BC152; RLW2005(1)Raj536; 2005(2)WLC384
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 17.12.2003 by which the executing court, Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Execution Case No. 13/2002 directed the petitioner bank to deposit Rs. 5,82,442/-.2. Brief facts of the case are that a money decree was obtained by M/s. Mohd. Nishar & Company respondent No. 2 against the respondent No. 3 State of Rajasthan and respondent No. 4 Executive Engineer, PHED, Pali. In execution of the said decree, an order was issued by the executing court on 22nd March, 2003 restraining the petitioner bank from making any payment to the PHED, Pali out of the account No. 71 to anybody till the order is passed by the executing Court.3. In response to the above notice dated 22nd March, 2003 (Annex. 1) the petitioner bank submitted a reply to the executing court on 29th March, 2003 (Annex.2) stating therein that the account No. 71 is in the name of the Superintending Engineer, PHED, Pali an...
Tag this Judgment!Aristo Chemical Vs. Rajasthan Wooltex
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: [2005]63SCL81(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant on the admission of the matter.2. Admit. Shri S.N. Kumawat, the Standing Counsel for the Official Liquidator, is present in the court : he accepts notice on behalf of the Official Liquidator, hence notice needs not to serve on the Official Liquidator.3. Looking to the nature of the case the application is taken up for final hearing.4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the merits of the matter.5. This is an application under Rule 177 of the Companies (Courts) Rules, 1959 for condonation of the delay in filing the claim before the Official Liquidator on behalf of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Rajasthan, Jaipur.6. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has a claim/debt of Rs. 26,606 on the Company towards EPF Contribution etc. under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.7. The learned Counsel for the parties are i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Spintex Tubes and Cons Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: [2005]64SCL194(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant on the admission of the matter.2. Admit, Shri S.N. Kumawat, the Standing Counsel for the Official Liquidator, is present in the court; he accepts notice on behalf of the Official Liquidator, hence notice needs not to serve on the Official Liquidator.3. Looking to the nature of the case the application is taken up for final hearing.4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the merits of the mailer.5. M/s. Spintex Tubes and Cons Limited (In Liquidation) has been ordered to be wound up by this Court under the order dated 27-3-1992 passed in S.B. Company Petition No. 3/1992.6. The applicant has claim/debt of Rs. 1,36,762 on the Company (in liquidation) towards EPF Contribution etc. under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act, 1952'). It is stated to be a preferential creditor under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1952 and under Section 530(1)(f) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaitan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj587; 2005WLC(Raj)UC215
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.2. The accused petitioner filed an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court praying therein that he may be permitted to examine himself as a witness in his defence. The learned Magistrate vide its impugned order dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that the matter is already fixed for judgment and that accused himself is not present.3. Section 315 Cr.P.C. entities an accused to make an application for getting himself examined as a witness in his defence and to give evidence on oath in disproof of the charge made against him. Thus an accused has a right to give evidence on oath in disproof of the charge. I fail to see why the Trial Court declined the prayer of the accused petitioner to give evidence on oath, only on the ground that case was fixed for judgment. Section 315 Cr.P.C. does not create any bar to make such a request at a particular stage of the case. In my view, i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »