Rajasthan Court January 2006 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.
Ganesh Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1842; 2006(2)WLC710
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Illicit relations between Ratan Lal and Smt. Kailashi, the wife of Ganesh Lal were well known in village Kheruna. On July 30, 1999 Ratan Lal was found murdered in the house of Ganesh Lal. Information in regard to murder of Ratan Lal was communicated by an unknown person over telephone to Krishna Kant. SHO Police Station Nainwa on July 30, 1999 at 5.30 AM, who rushed to the place of occurrence and found dead body of Ratan Lal in the room belonging to Ganesh Lal. Sukh Lal, the father of Ratan Lal who was present there, submitted a written report wherein it was stated that his son left the house after taking meals at 8 PM on the previous night and did not return to the house. On being searched he came to know that he was murdered and his dead body was lying in the house of Ganesh. On the basis of said report case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Ganesh Lal, the appellant herein, along with Hari Narain @ Harnarayan, Smt. Kailashi ...
Kishan Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2030; 2006(2)WLC737
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Ratan, Prahlad and Shrawan, three villagers living in village Bhambhori, who used to do their live stock like goats and Sheep grazing work, on 28.4.99 were coming back to home in the evening. When Srikishan, who is also said to be accompanying them and who is their relative and unfortunately suffering from mental disease suddenly snatched a Kulhari from Shrawan and caused injuries to Shrawan and Ratan both without any provocation, and as a result of said injuries, his brother-in-law Ratan Succumbed to such injuries and died on 28.4.99, on his way to the hospital.2. Upon a Parcha Bayan of Shrawan given to Police Station- Kalwad, Distt. Jaipur camp at Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur wherein said Shrawan was admitted for treatment of his injuries, reported that he lives in village Bhambhori where his father-in- law Nand Ram and co-brother Srikishan, the appellant before us, also live. On 28.4.99, when he (Shrawan), Prahlad, Ratan, Srikishan and one Anchi had gone taki...
Mod Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2618; 2006(2)WLC265
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Mod Singh, Smt. Harku Bai, Sardara and Ramesh, the appellants herein, along with one Bhuri Bai (absconded during trial), were placed on trial in Sessions Case No. 20/2000, before learned Additional Sessions Judge Aklera, District Jhalawar, who vide judgment dated July 2, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under-Mod Singh, Harku Bai, Sardara and Ramesh:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer life imprisonment and Fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer two months imprisonment.Under Section 326/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment.Under Section 324/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment.Substantive sent...
Jai Narayan Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2058; 2006FAJ107; RLW2006(1)Raj595; 2006(2)WLC420
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.8.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City; Jaipur whereby he has rejected the application filed bv the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act') praying that a sample of the article allegedly adulterated should be sent for further analysis to the Central Food Laboratory.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.4.1997 the Food Inspector collected some sample of the milk from the petitioner, which was subsequently found to be adulterated. Therefore, on 19.11.1997, the Food Inspector submitted a complaint against the petitioner for offence under Section 7/17 of the Act. On 27.11.2002 i.e., after a lapse of five years, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 13(2) of the Act as aforementioned ed. However, vide Order dated 16.8.2005 the said application was dismissed by the learned Court. Hence, ...
Dinesh Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC291; RLW2006(1)Raj659; 2006(2)WLC398
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Allegedly involved in the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, the petitioners have challenged the cognizance Order dated 4,12.2004 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-Smt. Anita Sharma, filed a criminal complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur against the accused petitioners wherein she claimed that on 27.11.2003 she was married to petitioner No. 1 - Dinesh Kumar Sharma at Jaipur. After the marriage, she left for her matrimonial home situated at Gwalior. She further alleged that initially she was well looked after by the petitioners. However, after some time, they started abusing her for lack of dowry. When she complained to her husband, he did not protect her. Subsequently, the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Jethani), all started physically and mentally mal-treating her. She further alleged that she was locked up in a room ...
Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj640; 2006(2)WLC239
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.3,2001 whereby the cognizance has been taken for offence under Sections 323, 341, 451 & 504 IPC by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 4, Alvvar.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.1998, the non- petitioner No. 2 had filed a criminal complaint before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar wherein he claimed that he is a class-IV employee in the Electricity Department and the accused petitioners No. 1, 3, & 4 are his colleagues and the petitioner No. 2 is the son of the petitioner No. 1. He further claimed that the petitioners No. 1, 3 & 4 have formed a clique in the Department. They abuse the other persons working in the Department. He further claimed that seven days earlier, the petitioners No. 1 & 4 had pressurized him to work at the house of petitioner No. 3 and to clean the dishes there. Since his wife was ill, he...
Gurucharan Singh Vs. Mahendra Lalwani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj881
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge order dated 5.9.2005 whereby the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Pali was an order suo moto exercising discretion under Section 165 of the Evidence Act. By order impugned dated 5.9.2005, the complainant was directed for the production of documents after hearing final arguments on 31.8.2005. It is further ordered that the case will be finally heard again on 30.9.2005.2. According to facts of the case narrated by the petitioner, complainant was filed by non-petitioner complainant under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 420 IPC alleging inter alia that the complainant financed for old Ambassador Car, 1990 model to the petitioner with a sum of Rs. 1,09,000/-. The said car bears Registration No. RJ-22-T-0131. The repayment of the loan amount was to be made in 25 instalments on agreed terms and conditions and, in default, it was agreed that 36 per ce...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. the District Judge and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj924
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The plaintiff-petitioners have submitted this writ petition being aggrieved of the order dated 16.9.2004 whereby the District Judge, Bikaner allowed Civil Appeal (Order) No. 52/2004 filed by the defendant-tenant and set aside the order dated 9.2.2004 passed by the Trial Court striking out defence against eviction because of delay in deposit of the amount of rent.2. Brief facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this writ petition are that the plaintiff-petitioners have Tiled a suit against the defendant-Respondent No. 2 for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of default. In accordance with the requirements of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act1 hereinafter), provisional determination of rent was made on 17.5.1995 and the defendant was required to make payment of the determined amount and so also future monthly rent. According to the petitioners, the r...
L.Rs. of Late Bheru Lal Vs. Mohammad Ibrahim
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1694; 2006(3)WLC242
Prakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts leading to filing of this suit for redemption of the mortgaged shop are that originally the property was belonging to one Laluji Soni. He had three sons, Suraj Mal, Bal Mukund and Laxmi Lal. Bal Mukund and Laxmi Lal both died before the year 1956. Suraj Mal had one son and wife, Jagannath and Lehri Bai. Suraj Mal also died long ago and it is alleged that Suraj Mal's wife contacted second marriage (Nata). It is alleged that Bal Mukund, Laxmi Lal and Jagannath constituted the coparcenery after the death of Laluji Soni. Bal Mukund mortgaged the shop in dispute to Narayan s/o Fateh Lal, Heera Lal and Jiwan Lal Sethi for a consideration of Rs. 3000/- on 30.1.1944. It is alleged that the said mortgage was created with the consent of Laxmi Lal and Jagannath. The possession was delivered to the mortgagees. The mortgagee Narayan expired and the remaining mortgagees transferred their mortgage's rights to the defendant for ...
Mohkam Chand Dasot and anr. Vs. Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge No. 3
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj156; RLW2006(3)Raj1858; 2006(2)WLC431
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.9.2004 by which, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Suit No. 126/2003 titled as Vilam Chand v. Mohkam Chand and Ors. allowed the application dated 15.3.2004 moved under Sections 11, 18, 24, 29 & 38 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/- lakhs and the issue for determination of the actual suit value was left open with the observation that it shall be decided after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and in case additional court fees required to be deposited, same shall be requisitioned from the plaintiffs-respondents.2. The impugned order dated 22.9.2004 was challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent No.2 before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 3, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »