Rajasthan Court November 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.
Sheo Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1781
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Sheo Chand, the appellant herein, was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror (Alwar), who vide judgment dated December 20, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Under Section 376(2)(g), IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 366-A, IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 363/109, IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Since co-accused Ashok Kumar was juvenile on the date of offence, his case was sent to the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Alwar.2. As per prosecution story informant Mukesh Kumar (PW.1) on April 15, 2001 submitted a written repo...
Hazarilal and anr. Vs. Shyamlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj434
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This appeal has come up before the Division Bench on reference by the learned Single Judge. The reference runs as under:Whether the law laid down in the judgments of Lalit Kishore v. Laxminarayan 1968 RLW 308, Ayub and Ors. v. Bhanwar Chand and Ors. ILR (1971) 21 Raj. 30 and Rao Raja Tej Singh v. Hastimal 1972 RLW 133 is correct law and what can be the stage at which presumption can be raised under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and any matter which may be found relevant for just decision of the case relating to the raising presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act by the appropriate Bench.2. The appeal is yet to be decided on merit. Also, having regard to the limited scope of reference, it is not necessary to state the facts of the case in detail except to mention that this appeal by the plaintiff arises from a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The appellants claim title by adverse possession. The cause of action for fi...
Dalveer Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1083
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Dalveer Singh, Vijay Singh and Arjun, the appellants herein, along with Mukesh were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bharatpur, who vide judgment dated June 5, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Dalveer Singh, Vijay Singh and Arjun:Under Section 302 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Under Section 394 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500A, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that informant Lal Singh (Pw.1) on August 3, 1999 submitted a written report at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Bharatpur stating therein that on July 30,1999 his driver Mohkam Singh proceeded to Mathura Mandi on Tractor No. RJ- 5/R6404 around 3 PM for selling 62 bags of mustard and 9 bags of grain. ...
Jaitoon and ors. Vs. Roop Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj898
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. By the impugned judgment, learned lower Appellate Court has decreed the suit for eviction, on the ground of second default i.e. the defendant has neither tendered nor paid rent for a period of six months, and earlier suit having been filed on the same ground, wherein on the first date of hearing the tenant had deposited the entire arrears of rent along with interest and costs, and consequently that previous suit was dismissed.3. I find from the impugned judgment that the certified copies of the previous suit, and the order dismissing that suit, on account of amount having been deposited, to be finding place on record as Ex. 1 and Ex. 4 respectively.4. H was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that this Court vide order dt. 22.2.2002 has noticed the contention, that though the rent was determined but by that order of rent determination, the trial Court consigned the record of the suit of the plaintiff, without h...
Arjun Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN260
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This is second application seeking suspension of conviction.2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned and the record of the trial Court.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant that because of conviction, the applicant-appellant, who is a Govt. employee on the post of Teacher, has been suspended by the employer and, therefore, the conviction may be suspended, so that the suspension from service can be revoked. Learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant has relied on a decision of this Court in Abdul Razak v. State of Rajasthan 2005 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 251.4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the suspension of conviction. Recently in Sumer Dan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, petitioner therein was convicted and the conviction was suspended for a limited period by this Court. The matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of I...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Bhagwan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj79
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. There are two revision petitions filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant- (1) SB Civil Revision Petition No. 2/2005 challenging the order dated 11-5-2004 whereby the trial Court rejected the petitioner's application for review of the order dated 18-9-2003 by which the trial Court set aside the ex parte decree passed under Order 37, CPC on application filed by the respondent under Order 37, Rule 4, CPC, and (2) SB Civil Revision Petition No. 29/2005 challenging the order dated 13-5-2004 by which the trial Court granted unconditional leave to defend to the same defendant in the same suit.3. It will be worthwhile to mention few facts with respect to the controversy. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant executed two agreements on 12-8-1991 whereby he agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/-given by the plaintiff as per the break-up given below:12-6-91 Rs. 50,000/-05-7-91 Rs. 25,000/-18-7-91 Rs. 25...
Mukesh Kumar Panwar Vs. Uco Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR1027]
Prem Shankar Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, his services on the post of Peon may be ordered to be regularised w.e.f. 21.8. 1985 with a further direction to pay regular salary equal to other persons performing the same duties of Peon.Briefly stated, relevant fails of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged as part-time water-boy in the office of UCO Bank, Agra Road, Jaipur where he worked upto 20.4.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as a daily rated full-time Peon on 21.8.1985 in place of one Baldev Singh, Peon who was transferred from there and since then, he has been discharging the duties of Class-1V employee/Peon. Petitioner has further submitted that he was paid at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day and thereafter his salary was increased to Rs. 18/- per day. At the time of filing the writ petition, he was being paid salary at the rate of Rs. 30/-per day.2. The res...
Sarla (Smt.) Vs. Narendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj389
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the judgment dated 13.9.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sojat Camp Jaitaran District Pali in Divorce Case No. 30/99. The trial Court passed the divorce decree in favour of the respondent-husband. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the wife-non-applicant-appellant.3. It will be worthwhile to mention that the present divorce petition was filed by the respondent-husband in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sojat camp Jaitaran on 24.11.1999 with the allegation of cruelty against the appellant-wife. It appears from the facts of the case that marriage of the appellant and respondent solemnized on 31.1.1990. The respondent-husband's contention is that wife treated him with cruelty and ultimately after more than nine years, the appellant-wife created dispute n 9.11.1999 in front of house of the appellant and insisted for going to her father's house. Number of persons gathered there and t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Raj)307; [2007]293ITR281(Raj)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur dt. 10th Oct., 2001 passed jointly for the asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94.3. At the time of admission, the following questions were framed as substantial questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal for consideration in this appeal:(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in law in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 1,50,000 made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) even though the assessee failed to establish that the payment made to State Polo Club alleged to be the fee for the sponsorship of Mewar OMS Trophy had any element of publicity or advertisement of its hotel business ?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee is entitled for depreciation on imported motor cars at full rate in spite of specific provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of ...
Babu Lal and ors. Vs. Sant Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj964
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. An important question of law, which arises for consideration in the present case, is as to whether an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, 'C.P.C.') on behalf of the respondent/decree-holder is maintainable for directing the appellants to make the payment of mesne profit/compensation as per prevalent market rate of monthly rent of the rented shop during the pendency of the second appeal for hearing?3. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction in respect of the disputed shop against the defendant-appellants, which was decreed by the lower court as well as the lower appellate court, both, on the ground of personal bona fide necessity as well as default in making the payment of monthly rent. However, in presence of both the parties, this Court vide order dated 1.12.2005 admitted the second appeal and formulated the substantial questions of law and also stayed the further ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »