Rajasthan Court September 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.
Shivan Das @ Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2957; 2005(4)WLC782
V.K. Bali, J.1. Shivan Das @ Shiv Kumar has been held guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC for causing murder of his wife and has been sentenced to a term of life, as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months vide order of conviction and sentence dated 30.9.2000 recorded by learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. The only question that needs to be determined in the present appeal filed by the Shivan Das against the order of his conviction and sentence is as to whether Smt. Rukmani- his wife, committed suicide due to the appellant persistently beating her while making a demand of money for liquor or that on one such occasion he himself killed her.3. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention to decide the question framed above, reveal that the occurrence leading to death of Smt. Rukmani had taken place on 20.6.1999 at 7.30 p.m. F...
Raj Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)WLC13
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 141/2001 for having committed murder of his wife Praneeta. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated May 11, 2002, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to further suffer three months' simple imprisonment.2. Praneeta now deceased after falling in love with the appellant, married him. Since the appellant was not economically sound, he along with Praneeta started residing in the house of Kamla Sharma, the mother of Praneeta. On August 15, 1997 at 10.00 p.m. Mustkeem Khan, S.I., P.S. Christianganj, Ajmer recorded 'Parcha-Beyan' Ex. PI A of Smt. Kamla Sharma, mother-in-law of the appellant wherein she stated that the appellant used to quarrel with her daughter Praneeta and after flag hoisting on the said day when Pranee...
Sunit @ Bobi Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj226
N.K. Jain, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and examined and impugned judgments as well as record of both the Courts below.2. Before arguing the case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that he does not want to press this revision petition on merits and his prayer is only to reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below to a period already undergone by the accused petitioner.3. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bharatpur under Section 377 IPC to five years rigorous imprisonment and a Fine of Rs. 6,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. It was also ordered that out of Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- will be paid to the father of injured Roop Singh towards compensation.4. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed an appeal which was partly allowed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 judgment dated 25th June, 2004. ...
Bhairu Ratan Vs. Rajasthan Krishi Vishva Vidhyalaya and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1290; 2006(1)WLC600
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These appeals are founded on common ground about computation of services rendered by the appellants' in all these cases under the Rajasthan Agricultural University on temporary basis from the date of entering into service against 'regular posts, on which posts they continued to serve until they were appointed substantively by holding a screening test after the decision of this Court in Dilip Bhatnagar and 6 Ors. v. Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner 1994 (3) WLC 42. 2. The Government of Rajasthan had issued the order dated 25.1.92 in respect of the Rajasthan State Employees in class IV and Ministerial and Subordinate services providing the amelioration of service conditions of stagnated employees who have not received any promotion for a span of 9 years in each of 9, 18 and 27 years respectively for the purpose of granting them first, second or third selection scale. In the said order, selection pay scale has been envisioned to be granted without giving actual...
Jagdamba Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Jodhan Real Estate Develo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2282
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 31.8.2005 by which the petitioner's application under the heading 'Order 39 Rule 7 CPC' was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur.3. This Court has no hesitation in observing that the learned trial judge namely, Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur either was not knowing the law on the subject of appointment of Commissioner or if he was knowing Law on the subject, then the position is much more grave.4. On an application for appointment of Commissioner, the learned trial judge recorded findings which are in para No. 3 of the impugned order. Para No. 3 of the impugned order reads as under:'i{kdkjku dh cgl lqudj i=oyh dkvoyksdufd;k x;k A fnukad 18-6-2005 ds vokMZ ls vkjchVsVj }kjk 58900 oxZ ehVj Hkwfeij tkga 106 edku fufeZr gks x;s gS] mu edkuksa dh fLFkfr ckcr~ izkFkhZ ovizkFkhZ dks tks funsZ'k fn;s gS] mudh ikyuk ckcr~ nksuksa i{k ;FkkfLFkfr j[khgqbZg...
Hanif Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2975; 2006(1)WLC75
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar, who vide Judgment dated August 5, 2002, convicted and sentenced them as under:--Raju:Under Section 148 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment one and a half year.Under Section 323/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment six months.Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer one year rigorous imprisonment.(2) Inder, (3) Harchandi, (4) Brijendra and (5) Hanif: Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment one and a half year.Under Section 323/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment six months.Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer one year rigorous imprisonment.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is woven like this:--Informant Mukesh (Pw. 1) handed over a written report to the ...
Shiv Charan and anr. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)WLC128
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, four in number, faced trial in Sessions Case No. 108/2001 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Gangapur City for short 'trial judge' who vide Judgment dated October 22, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Shiv Charan, Kedar, Nehru and Bhoriya:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is that the informant Batti Lal PW. 1 submitted a written report Ex-P-1 at the Police Station Bamanwas on August 28, 2000 to the effect that around 9.00 AM on the said day while his brother Prahlad now deceased was grazing buffaloes, the appellants along with one Mahesh belaboured Prahlad and inflicte...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahavir Prasad Malpani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC47; RLW2005(4)Raj2860; 2006(1)WLC449
V.K. Bali, J.1. This appeal under Clause 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2.2.2001 vide which the appeal preferred by the appellant National Insurance Co. against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 1.12.2000 was dismissed.2. The claimant, in a motor accident that took place on 30.11.1984, suffered fracture of back-bone. He was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,05,000/- vide award passed by the Tribunal dated 1.12.2000. The learned Single Judge before whom the appeal came to be placed, held that since only quantum of compensation was in question and the Insurance Co. had failed to obtain permission as required under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appeal was not maintainable. While so holding, learned Single Judge, besides placing reliance upon Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarayya ...
Khushal Kanwar (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj38; RLW2006(1)Raj599; 2005(4)WLC606
V.K. Bali, J.1. Will dated 28.1.1977 executed by the testator Smt. Anandi Devi wife of Ganesh Lal, which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ajmer on 1.2.1977 was proved. Respondents did raise objection in opposing the cause of the appellant for grant of probate of the Will by pleading that Anandi Bai had no right or title to execute any Will and had not executed and Will on 28,1.1977 nor was she physically and mentally fit to execute the same. There was no plea, however, pertaining to map annexed with the registered Will. The Will has since been held to be a genuine document having been duly executed but for the plan attached with the Will and on that count alone, application made by the appellant here under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, for grant of probate of the Will dated 28.1.1977 has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer vide order dated 29.8.1987 which order has since been confirmed on the same very ground by the learned Single Judge of this...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Jaishree and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ1291
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The appeal comes up for admission. However, since the claimants have appeared as caveators and vide order dated 18.3.2005, record of the court below was ordered to be requisitioned, which has already been received, in that view of the matter, at the request of all the learned Counsel for the parties, I have heard the matter finally at this stage itself.2. Learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, has accepted the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants and has passed an award for a sum of Rs. 78,32,000, along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.3. The facts of the case are, that the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal below, alleging inter alia that on 1.7.2001 the deceased victim, Rohit was coming from Ganganagar to Bikaner, driving Maruti car No. DL9C-C 4966, at about 10.30 in the night, when he reached near Shiv Temple in village Mahajan, the military Tatra ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »