Rajasthan Court October 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.
Bhuri Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj997
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The predecessor in title of petitioners Narain Singh filed a suit for declaration against Smt. Gainda (predecessor in title of respondents No. 4 to 7) regarding the land in dispute situated in village Kakda Tehsil Deeg claiming to be in possession of the land since Svt. 2014 and acquired khatedari rights. Since despite service the defendant did not appear the Sub Divisional Officer Deeg proceeded exparte and decreed the suit vide judgment dated July 20, 1970. The respondents filed first appeal on June 23, 1973 along with the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. On receiving notices the petitioners raised preliminary objections. The appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment dated July 16, 1974. Thereafter the respondents filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue (for short 'Board'), who vide judgment dated November 11, 1982 dismissed the same holding that the respondents purchased the land in dispute ...
MoldIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ226
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374, Cr. P. C. arises out of the judgment dated 31-7-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 379 of the Official Secrets Act, 1932 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for five years.2. Suggestions stated the facts of the case are that the Station House Officer, Special Police Station, Rajasthan, Jaipur filed a complaint, Ex. P. 49 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur stating therein that on 7-6-1994, Additional S. P., CID, Border Intelligence (Seema Pragyan), Jaisalmer received a secret information to the effect that one Moldin is involved in espionage (Jasoosi) and sending important information concerning. Indian Army, Field Firing Range, Air Force, Canal and Roads etc. to the officials of Pakistan Intelligence. He is present at Thaiyat Fanta and intends to leave for Pakistan. Havin...
Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj175
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of instant habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Ramswaroop seeks production of his sister namely Sunita @ Santosh. It appears that the detenue Sunita @ Santosh is a victim of rape. She lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Hanumangarh alleging therein that while she was serving as Office Assistant in the Department of DPEP, Hanumangarh, she was being sexually exploited by the Head of the Office namely Onkar Singh R.A.S. and his associates namely Dhanne Singh, Bachhu Singh, Gurudev Singh, Shiv Narain and Milkha Singh. The police registered a case being F.I.R. No. 239/2006 at Police Station, Hanumangarh for offence under Section 376(2)(b) IPC. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 28.4.2006 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hanumangarh. After usual investigation a charge-sheet has been filed against the said accused persons for offence under Section 376(2)(b) IPC.2. An another F.I...
Radhey Shyam (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Vs. Ka ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj166
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2. Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration.2. Plaintiffs respondents Filed a suit against defendant Radhey Shyam for declaration, possession, injunction and damages for use and occupation, with the averments that plaintiff No. 2 is a temple of Thakurji Shreeji, Anna Poornaji and Mahadeoji, situated at Jaiti-ki-kothi, Chandarwaja, Moti Katla Bazar, Jaipur and there is a land beneath it measuring 5 bighas. One Sadaram Mushraf, Kayastha by caste purchased a well and the said 5 bighas of land, for which a patta was granted by the then erst-while State of Jaipur for the purpose of constructing temple of Mahadeoji and Annapurnaji which was accordingly constructed. Shri Sadaram handed over possession of the aforesaid land and building to Panchan Biradari Kayasthan Mathur Chowkr...
Brij Lal Bundel Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj484
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This writ petition by a former member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) has been filed for quashing the punishment of censure awarded to the petitioner vide order No. Estt. (RJS)/06/98 dated 7.1.1998. The petitioner has sought number of other reliefs too including quashing of the resolution dated 6.1.1995 by which the Full court was made the Disciplinary Authority, direction to pay him full pay and allowances for the suspension period and release of annual grade increment becoming due during the suspension period, and grant of selection grade scale of RHJS from the date his juniors were allowed the scale.2. Orders were passed after Filing of the writ petition in terms of which petitioner's suspension period from 4.12.1992 to 2.8.1993 was regularized vide order dated 28.2.2000, and the period was treated as spent on duty but only for the purpose of pension, and he was not allowed the pay and allowances except the subsistence allowance already drawn by him ...
Jaabid HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN147
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the material placed on record.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Mohanani submits that the petitioner in this case is facing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 377, 363, 342 and 324 IPC.3. Earlier the petitioner had moved bail application which was dismissed by this Court on 21.04.2006 observing that the petitioner is free to move fresh bail application after recording of statement of Dilip Singh. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that challan was filed in this case before the Court on 19.04.2006 and charges were framed on 20.05.2006 and the first date of recording evidence was fixed on 25.05.2006 and since 25.05.2006 to 26.07.2006 the trial was to be completed as per the mandatory provision of Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that statements ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Kishan Leela
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Raj)463
1. The Revenue, at whose instance these appeals have been preferred relating to asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87, has challenged the common order passed by the Tribunal on 28th Feb., 2005, whereby, reassessment orders for the aforesaid two asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 in the case of respondent-assessee have been quashed.2. The appellant has sought to raise the question about validity of the finding reached by the Tribunal as well as by CIT(A) that reopening of the assessment for these two years cannot be sustained.3. The facts of the case are that, in the first instance, the respondent-assessee has filed return for asst. yr. 1985-86 on 30th March, 1985 declaring loss of Rs. 69,735 and, thereafter on 31st March, 1986 another return was filed under Amnesty Scheme declaring loss of Rs. 32,565. A search was conducted at the assessee's premises on 15th March, 1990 and proceedings were initiated under Section 147 r/w Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961. Finally, assessments were concluded under ...
Ghanshyam Vs. Sardarmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj158
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant, against the judgment and decree of the learned courts below, whereby the plaintiff respondent's suit for eviction has been decreed by both the learned courts below.2. The facts of the case are, that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent, pleading interalia, that the plaintiffs had a joint property comprising of big Kotha, which was let out on 30.3.1984, to the defendant for storing his goods of Tent House etc., at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. It was stipulated that the defendant will not materially alter the premises. The measurement of the Kotha is given as 34 24 ft., and was one apartment, having main gate in the North, which door was measuring about 10 x 8 ft. having wooden shutters, on the side of this opening there was one window, measuring 3 4 ft. having Teak wood fittings. It is alleged that about a Week ago, the plaintiff had materially altered this wall, by demolishing certain portion, and inst...
Subhash Chand Sharma Vs. Dileep
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj555
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant seeks to set aside the order dated March 10, 206 of the learned Single Judge, whereby restoration application submitted by the appellant was dismissed.3. Contextual facts depict that against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3407/2005 came to be filed by the appellant on November 28, 2005. On December 19, 2005 when the Civil Misc. Appeal was listed, the appellant and his counsel did not appear and the appeal was dismissed in default. The appellant moved an application seeking restoration of the appeal on January 3, 2006, but the learned Single Judge vide order March 10, 2006 dismissed the restoration application. Against this order of the learned Single Judge that the instant special appeal has been preferred by the appellant.4. The appellate Court was dismiss the appeal in default under Order XLI Rule 17 CPC on the ground of absence of he appellant and his c...
Asuji Bharat Kumar Vs. Shantilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj241
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant, against the decree for eviction, passed by both the learned Courts below, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff, and by also deciding the question. of comparative hardship and partial eviction, and subletting, against the appellant.2. The facts of the case are, that a suit for eviction has been filed on 23.5.85, by the three plaintiffs, being the heirs of Banshilal, i.e. his widow Radhabai, son Shantilal, and widowed daughter Shushila, alleging inter-alia, that the property described in para-1 of the plaint, being a Nohra including a shop, was let out to the defendant No. 1 (M/s. Ashuji Kewalchand) by the deceased landlord Banshilal and plaintiff No. 2 Shantilal, on 11.2.63, at a monthly rent of Rs. 42/-, the month of the tenancy was on the basis of Hindi Miti, rent note was executed on 14.6.63. Then in Samvat Year 2030 a shop was constructed, therefore, the premises comprised of Nohra and shop,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »