Rajasthan Court May 2005 Judgments
Jaipur Syntex Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC435; 2005CriLJ3429; RLW2005(4)Raj2344; 2005(4)WLC321
ORDERK.C. Sharma, J.1. Succinctly stated the facts in brief are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner-company and its directors, under Sub-section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') in the month of May, 1999. On 9-6-1999, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner-company. Feeling aggrieved by the order taking cognizance, the petitioner-company and respondent No. 2 both challenged the order of cognizance dated 9-6-1999 before this Court by filing a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and a revision-petition under Section 397(3), Cr. P.C, respectively. This Court vide order dated 24-4-2002 remanded the matter to the trial Court with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law.2. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 1 -5-2004...
Tag this Judgment!Jasraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2508
B. Prasad, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by his conviction Under Section 302 IPC. Sentence of life has been awarded to him by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 25/99 by judgment dated 29.3.2001.2. The prosecution was initiated on the report lodged by one Memuram on 20.2.1999 at 12.15 a.m. According to the report submitted by the first informant, Ex. 18, the first informant reported to the Police that his sister Nainy was married to Jasraj Bheel about 10 years ago. There was a son and two daughters born out of the wedlock. His brother-in-law, accused- Jasraj used to maltreat his sister. About a year before she came to her parental house unable to bear the harassment of her husband. After being persuaded by some persons of the Community, she was sent with the accused.3. On the fateful day at about 10.00 p.m. Jasraj-accused came alongwith his nieces and enquired whether Nainy had come there. The first informant replie...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Singh Vs. Lrs of Bhanwar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj8; RLW2005(4)Raj2749; 2005(4)WLC150
B. Prasad, J.1. This Special appeal has been filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge in Civil First Appeal No. 60/73 decided on 5th March, 1992. The proceedings were initiated on filing of Civil Original Suit No. 57/1965 in the court of Additional District Judge, Udaipur. The suit was for specific performance of contract entered in between the parties. After trial, the Trial Court was of the opinion that plaintiff has not been able to make out a case for ordering specific performance of contract. The Trial Court found that the document Ex.2 dated 7.12.62 was a false and forged document. It was concluded that Rs. 15,000/- received by the defendant was an independent loan transaction. It was repaid with interest to the plaintiff on 21.5.65 by holding the receipt Ex.A/2 to be genuine. The Trial Court also concluded that there was no transferable right vested with the defendant on the day when agreement was entered in between the parties. Since, there was no transferable rig...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar Vs. Director General Prisons and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2255; 2005(3)WLC694
V.K. Bali, J.1. Mahendra Kumar the petitioner herein though present writ filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks his release on parole for a period of twenty days to look-after his ailing wife. He is presently lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer and undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. The order of conviction and sentence was passed against him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur Fast Track No. 1. Tonk in Sessions Case No. 03/2003 State of Rajasthan v. Mahendra Kumar and Ors. He is in continuous custody since March, 1998. He has undergone actual sentence for a period of over seven years. He applied for first parole for a period of twenty days but his application was rejected for the reason that he had a bad police record. It is the case of the petitioner that he had no adverse record. The Jail Administration, Director, Social Welfare and Village Sarpanch have recommended his release on parole to look- after his wife who is ill and there is nobody to ta...
Tag this Judgment!Shiyanand Son of Shri Dularam Vs. State of Rajasthan and Two ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2258; 2005(4)WLC211
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Special appeal, under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed by the petitioner appellant Shiyanand against the order, dated 2.5.1994, of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2042/1994.2. The petitioner appellant was dismissed from the service vide order, dated 31.3.1993, of the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, on being found proved against him three charges communicated to him vide memo, dated 2.9.1992, Annexure-1.3. Against this order, the petitioner appellant filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority. These orders are challenged by the petitioner appellant in the aforesaid writ petition and that was dismissed under the impugned order, thus this special appeal.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner appellant contended that the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu was not competent to order for dismissal of the petitioner appellant from the services. In his submission the Inspecto...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Certified Seeds Producers Association Vs. State of Raj ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj305
1. The appeal has been listed for orders on office report that paper book required to be submitted by the appellant has not been submitted. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that they have already filed the paper books.2. However, we shall presently notice that necessity of paper book in the present case is not required inasmuch as no dispute of fact is required to be gone into and only question that is required to be considered in this appeal is that whether the learned single Judge was justified in refusing refund of cess deposited by the petitioner-appellant under the orders of the Court and subject to condition of the order. The learned single Judge denied refund on the principle of unjust enrichment.3. The parties have agreed that the appeal may be heard finally.4. The appellant-petitioner filed the writ petition claiming relief against levy of market, fee levied under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. At the time of admitting the w...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Jaipuria and ors. Vs. Jaipur Nagar Nigam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj3029; 2006(1)WLC92
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioners herein have filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondent No. 1 - Jaipur Nagar Nigam to comply with the order of status quo passed in Civil Suit No. 58/05 in favour of the petitioners by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate Ist Class No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The order of status quo appears to have been passed on an application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-petitioners. The petitioners herein have urged that inspite of the order of status quo having been passed in their favour by the Civil Court, Respondent No. 2 has been proceeding with the illegal construction activities including constructions of a room on the disputed premises.2. A perusal of the facts of the case enumerated by the petitioners disclose that the petitioners had filed a civil suit before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Court No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur for perm...
Tag this Judgment!Lehri Bai (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Smt. Meera Kunwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2176
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only question involved in this appeal is that whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 376/2001 by its award dated 24th Oct., 2002 has wrongly exonerated the respondent-Insurance Company from liability under the insurance policy, which was obtained by the appellants.3. The facts, which are not in dispute are that the driver of the vehicle was holding valid driving licence and that expired on 27.2.2000. The accident occurred on 28.2.2001 at 8:00 AM after expiry of the driving licence of the driver. The driving licence was renewed by the driver on the same day, i.e., on 28.2.2001, meaning thereby the license was renewed after the occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal held that Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse the claim amount to the owner of the vehicle because at the time of accident, the driver was not holding the valid driving licence.4. Learned Counsel for th...
Tag this Judgment!Baliwala Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2489
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal revision Under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short 'the Code' hereinafter is directed against the order dated 11.3.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur for short 'the revisional Court' hereinafter in Criminal Revision No. 11/2000, whereby the revisional Court set aside the order dated 10.12.1998 passed by Executive Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 7/98. By order dated 10.12.1998, the executive Magistrate attached the disputed property Under Section 146 of the Code and appointed SHO, Police Station Khanda Falsa as receiver and directed him to take over the disputed property in his custody.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that a proceeding Under Section 145 of the Code was initiated before the Executive Magistrate. After drawing the preliminary order as envisaged Under Section 145 of the Code, the notices were issued to the parties and after hearing the part...
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang Alias Brijlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3393
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') has been filed challenging the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bikaner (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 45/2004, by which the trial Court dismissed the application Tiled by the petitioner seeking to declare that the petitioner was juvenile as defined in Section 2(k) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) on the date of alleged commission of crime and as such he should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board.2. The petitioner, along with his father and younger brother is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 302 I.P.C. for the occurrence which took place on 3.6.2004. He filed an application under Section 49 of the Act for determination of his age and alleged that his date of b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »