Rajasthan Court March 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.
Jitesh Kumawat Vs. Naresh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC480; 2005CriLJ3419
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant revision under Section 397, Cr. P.C., the accused-petitioner has challenged the judgment and order impugned dated 3-12-2002 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cases, Udaipur (for short, 'the appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 31/ 2000, by which the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 5-4-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) No. 2 (South), Udaipur (for short, 'the trial Court') convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (for short, 'the Act').2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for disposal of this revision petition, are that complainant Naresh filed a complaint before the trial Court stating therein that the accused-petitioner purchased colour of Rs. 39,000/- on credit basis and issued a cheque for this amount. On presentation, the bank dishonoured the...
Jogendra Singh Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: [2006]65SCL162(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on admission of the matter.2. Admit. Shri B.C. Meena, the Official Liquidator, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. The matter is complete. A copy of the application is furnished to the Official Liquidator by the counsel for the petitioner.3. Looking to the nature of the case the application is taken up for final hearing.4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Official Liquidator on the merits of the matter.5. Having gone through the contents of the application I am satisfied that the delay occurred in submitting the claim of the arrears of salary etc. by the petitioner before the Official Liquidator has satisfactorily been explained.6. Accordingly, the application succeeds and the same is allowed. The delay made in filing of the claim of the salary etc. by the petitioner before the Official Liquidator, is condoned. The Official Liquidator is directed to register the claim o...
Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2893; RLW2005(2)Raj894; 2005(2)WLC755
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. The accused petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 400 IPC and Ram Niwas, father of Mst. Guddi is a prosecution witness in the case. He was examined as PW5. His examination-in-chief was complete on 4.3.1999 and cross examination was closed on 10.2.2003. The accused petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 24.5.2004 before the Trial Court with the prayer that he may be allowed to cross examine PW5 Ram Niwas and the learned Trial Court allowed the petitioner's application on the same day. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the complainant non-petitioner filed a revision petition. The revisional court vide its order dated 21.9.2004 accepted the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence the present petition by the accused petitioner.2. It appears that the case was fixed on 10.2.2003 for cross examination of PW5 Ram Niwas, but the witness could not be cross exa...
Munshi Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2932; RLW2005(2)Raj1008; 2005(2)WLC747
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the courts below.2. Complainant Iqbal Singh, partner of M/s. Hotel Kohinoor lodged a written report on 20.8.2003 at Police Station, Jalupura, Jaipur against the present petitioners alleging therein that for the purposes of running the hotel and for its management he had entered into license agreement with petitioners Munshi Ram Tutlani, Vljay Tutlani, Pawan Tutlani and Shyam Sunder Tutlani who are partners of M/s. Vijay Kumar & Company. According to the terms and conditions of license, M/s. Vijay Kumar & Company had to pay license fees of Rs. 3,61,000/- per month to the complainant, after deducting income-tax TDS. The said company continued to pay license fee in terms of license agreement till March 2003, and thereafter it paid license fees after deducting TDS to the tune of 20.5%, but the partners of the Company did not deposit with the income tax department the amount payable to it. It was further allege...
Ganesh Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj831; 2005(2)WLC259
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before this Court on 7.2.2005 after dismissal of his first bail application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on 1.2.2005.2. One Shri Harpreet Singh, an official of Municipal Board, Hanumangarh Town, lodged a FIR on 18th September, 2004 at Police Station, Vishwakarma, Jaipur wherein it was alleged that on 17th September, 2004 he alongwith Mr. Madan Singh Budhaniya, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Hanumangarh was travelling in the bus of Sharma Travels from Hanumangarh to Jaipur alongwith two bags of record containing 41 files in one bag and six files in another bag. During the journey, one sumit, member of Municipal Board also came in the said bus at Bus Stand, Pallu. When they reached Jaipur, then he saw that both the bags were missing. During investigation, some evidence came on record that Sumit took some files from the bus and gave to the petitioner, who was travelling in car.3. Be...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Sunita Mansinghka
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Raj)243
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. The proceedings for block asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1997-98 were initiated against the respondents as a result of search conducted at the residence of assessee on 24th March, 1997 under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961. In response to the notice to file return, the assessee filed a return of the block period by showing the income for asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1997-98 as per the income-tax return for the respective assessment years and undisclosed income in the sum of Rs. 41,220 for 20 days for the asst. yr. 1998-99 corresponding to the period from 1st April, 1996 to 24th March, 1997. Undisclosed income was referable to the value of 7 kg. of silver utensils.3. The AO found that the assessee is a partner of M/s Balaji Investors and besides having agricultural income of the agricultural land at Atun Road, Bhilwara the assessee has half share in a farm house cum swimming pool which was constructed by the firm during the block assessment period. During t...
Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2127; RLW2005(3)Raj1560; 2005(2)WLC768
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The Instant appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Mohan Singh against the Judgment dated 7-8-2002 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur, District Jaipur whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer S.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer S.I. for six months.2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-Mohan Singh is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix PW-2 Chain Kanwar w/o Shakti Singh (PW-4). On the intervening night of 27th and 28th October, 1997 PW-4 Shakti Singh was sleeping at his maternal grandfather's home and in one of the rooms of the house belonging to the appellant, the prosecutrix was sleeping. At about 1.00 a.m. appellant asked the prosecutrix to open the door of her room on the pretext that her mother-in-law is not well. When the prosecutrix opened the door the appel...
Laxman Prasad Sharma Vs. District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1819; 2005(2)WLC787
N.N. Mathur, J.1. In these two sets of Special Appeals, one arising from the advertisement issued by the District & Sessions Judge Pratapgarh and another by the District & Sessions Judge Bhilwara for recruitment on the post of Lower Division Clerk, hereinafter referred-to as the 'LDC', directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the core question arises for consideration is:-'whether the candidates placed in the select list have vested and enforceable right to be appointed on the further vacancies occurred in excess of the advertised vacancies during the currency of one year ?'2. The undisputed relevant facts are that the district Judge, Pratapgarh by advertisement dated 10.5.2001 invited applications for filling-in six posts of LDC. After written & type test, the result of the successful candidates was declared on 30.10.2001. The successful candidates were called for interview on 31.10.2001. Because of pendency of the writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ petition No. 955...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Manohar Lal Deora
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2109; 2005(3)WLC331
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The respondent was appointed as a Conductor on probation w.e.f. 4.7.1977 by the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and was posted at Jodhpur Depot. While, he was discharging his duties as Conductor on Jodhpur-Kota route, by order 1.12.1982 he was put under suspension in contemplation of an inquiry. The memorandum of charges dated 6.1.1983 was issued. The memorandum of charges consisted as many as 9 charges, out of which 7 charges related to making interpolation in tickets issued by him in duplicate and a copy of which was retained for submitting his accounts of collections by converting the name of the terminal Kota to terminal Kekri. On the basis of this conversion, it was alleged that the delinquent officer ought to have deposited with the Corporation full fare chargeable between the two terminals namely from Jodhpur to Kota at Rs. 42/- per ticket but the de...
Arun Chauhan (Dr.) Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1250; [2005(105)FLR728]; RLW2005(2)Raj1089; 2005(2)WLC719
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the order transferring fifth respondent Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sharma from Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara to Shri Jawahar Hospital Jaisalmer.2. The undisputed facts are that fifth respondent Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sharma was posted as Senior Specialist in Gynaecology at M.G. Hospital, Bhilwara. She was also holding the charge of Principal Medical Officer, Bhilwara. The appellant Dr. Arun Chauhan, a Junior specialist in Gynaecology, who was initially transferred from Asind to Bijollya, was accommodated at Bhilwara on the post held by fifth respondent. The said order of transfer was challenged by fifth respondent before the Rajasthan Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 28.7.2004. Fifth respondent challenged the said order by way of a writ petition, which has been allowed and the order of transfer has been quashed by the impugned order.3. Mr. M.S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »