Rajasthan Court May 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.
S.K. Kumbhaj (Dr.) Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj89; 2005(3)WLC542
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Education, as the rest of the civilised world knows, is the surest way of eradicating the social and economic evils that plague our society. Without education democracy loses its meaning, efficacy and aspirations. India's economic progress during the last 55 years of independence has been crippled by the successive governments' dismal performance to provide free and universal education. Being a long term investment, education, as an agenda, has never found favour with any of the political parties who, on the other hand, give a false priority to short term populist policies of subsidies and reservations to enrich their vote-banks. Today, among almost all classes education is a burning issue. No home is silent these days when education comes up as a topic of conversation. In any highly competitive environment, education is the beginning and end of all families existence; it's like the proverbial 'survival of the fittest.' If you are not educated or are even semi- lite...
In Re: Rajasthan Fasteners (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: [2006]66SCL102(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This application is filed by Rajasthan Fasteners Private Limited having its Registered Office at B-27, Road No. 5, RHCO Industrial Area, Kukas, Amer, Jaipur, Rajasthan ('the applicant Transferee Company'), under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act, 1956'); therein the prayer has been made for an order for dispensing with the formalities of convening and holding of the meetings of the Equity Shareholders and of secured/unsecured creditors of the Applicant-Transferee Company or any other direction/order which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. There are 22 equity shareholders of the Transferee Company, the details of which are given at page No. 115 of the application. The equity shareholders have given their consent/no objection regarding amalgamation of M/s. Aditya Minerals Private Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Transferor Company') with the Transferee Company. These consent letters/no objections ha...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gora Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC124; 2006ACJ2713
S.K. Keshote and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed by non-claimant appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short, 'the appellant company') against the judgment dated 26.11.1997, of the learned single Judge, in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 495 of 1995, under the impugned judgment the learned single Judge enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 11,10,796 from that of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim Case No. 650 of 1992.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 23.7.1992 when Ramdhan (since deceased) was going on a motor cycle towards Laxmi Mandir Cinema Hall, Jaipur, one truck bearing No. RJ 14-G 0221, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, struck the motor cycle of the deceased, he was crushed and died on the spot. The appellant company, undisputedly, insured the offending truck. Claimants-respondents are the widow, c...
Dhirendra Manharbhai (Shri) and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2700; 2005(3)WLC80
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The petitioners in the instant public interest litigation claims to be the followers of Pushtimargiya Vaishnava Sampradaya and devotees of temple of Shri Shrinath Ji at Nathdvvara. They seek direction to the respondents for framing of proper and appropriate scheme for regulating arrangement of the Darshan, holding of Festivals, Ceremonies and distribution of Prasad. A further direction has been sought commanding the 2nd respondent i.e. Goswami Shri Rakesh Ji Maharaj to ensure the performance of public and statutory duties.2. Before dealing with the merit of the grievance voiced, it would be convenient to set out briefly the historical, cultural and religious background of the temple and the incidence in relation to the management of the temple.3. The temple of Shrinathji at Nathdwara holds a very high place among the Hindu Temples in this country and is looked upon with great reverence by the Hindus in general and Vaishnava followers of Vallabha in particular. As in t...
Laxman Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj121; 2005WLC(Raj)UC718
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. On 26.3.2002, this court while staying order conviction dated 30.10.2001 qua appellant Om Prakash kept pending the application of appellant Laxman Lal for disposal. It appears from the order dated 26.3.2002 that this court having found sufficient material as regards Om Prakash that department has issued notice to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him which may result into termination of his service, entertained the prayer for suspension of conviction as conviction being capable of execution and accordingly suspended the order of conviction in so far it relates to Om Prakash. However, since the services of Laxman Lal had already been terminated, his application was kept pending with a view to ascertain whether even after termination of service, order of conviction can still be stayed.3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has produced before me two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, first in Furquan A...
Bhairu and Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1831
V.K. Bali, J.1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of three connected criminal appeals bearing No. 252/2000, No. 309/2000 and No. 248/2000 as the same emanate from a common order of conviction and sentence dated 1.5.2000 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bundi. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also suggest likewise.2. Whereas Appeal No. 252/2000 has been filed by Murli, Heera and Chhitar, Appeal No. 309/2000 has been filed by Kanwar Lal and Bhanwar Lal and Appeal No. 248/2000 has been filed by Bhairu and Mohan Lal. The appellants named above have been held guilty for offences Under Section 147, 148, 302, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of six months. They have been convicted for various offences as mentioned below:Section 302/149 IPC - Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment o...
Varindra Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1791; 2005(3)WLC501
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.2. The petitioners have submitted an application for impleading state as party.3. It appears that the petitioners inadvertently did not implead the State of Rajasthan as party and now is seeking to implead it as party. The petitioner inadvertently impleaded the Registrar of Hindu Marriage, who is District Collector, Sri Ganganagar also, as party by name instead of impleading the Registrar of Hindu Marriages and District Collector, Sri Ganganagar as party and also failed to implead the State of Rajasthan as party. However, reply has already been filed by the Officer-in-charge of the State Government through Dy. Government Advocate, therefore, the application for impleading State as party is allowed. Amended cause title, which has already been filed, is taken on record. At the request for learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard as the pleadings are complete.4. The petitioner No. 2 was residing in Canada an...
Vinod, Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1909; 2005(3)WLC280
V.K. Bali, J.1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected appeals bearing No. 113/2001 and 40/2001 as both the appeals emanate from common impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 11.1.2001 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. Whereas Appeal No. 113/2001 has been filed by Vinod, his brother Karniram and Urmila wife of Vinod, Appeal No. 40/2001 has been filed by Ramdev, Kishore and Nagendra, who as informed to us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, are not related to the appellants of Appeal No. 113/2001. All the six accused named above were tried for causing death of Sardara and causing injuries to his wife Kaushalya at 9 p.m. on 25.5.1998. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by Kaushalya examined as PW-1 on 26.5.1998 at 5.30 a.m. While unfolding the narration of events leading to the death of her husband and injuries to herself, she stated that she was residing at Sotwara in the fields in the house made by them there ...
Pitram and Rotash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2079; 2005(3)WLC292
V.K. Bali, J. 1. Pitram with the help of his sister's brother Rotash and four others from the village of Rotash namely Mahesh Kumar, Subhkaran @ Sube Singh, Amar Singh and Vijay Singh, it is the prosecution case, killed Moosaram, real brother of the appellant Pitram and injured Mooli, mother of appellant Pitram and deceased Moosaram on 13.10.1996 at 8 p.m. In the trial held against six persons named above, whereas Mahesh, Subhkaran, Amar Singh and Vijay Singh have been acquitted, the appellant Pitram and Rotash have been found guilty of offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of three months, vide order of conviction and sentence passed on that behalf by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neemkathana, District Sikar, dated 2.12.1999.2. With regard to the occurrence leading to the death of Moosaram and injuries to Mooli tha...
Hariprasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3762
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5-11-2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar (for short, 'the Revisional Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 59/2003, by which the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner and maintained the Order dated 19-4-2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 119/98, by which the trial Court framed charge under Section 406, IPC against the petitioner.2. Briefly recapitulated, the facts of the case are that a written report was lodged with Police Station, Makrana by one Brij Mohan Sharma, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Makrana against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was granted loan of Rs. 34,673/- under the Unemployed Scheme. Ou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »