Rajasthan Court May 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.
Hanuman Ram and anr. Vs. Anada Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2627; 2006(4)WLC15
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.2. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, one of the appellants, Dhanna Ram father of Hanuman Ram filed one suit for possession being civil original No. 82/2004 against respondent Anada Ram, plaintiff of civil original No. 164/2004. said suit No. 82/2004 was withdrawn by Dhanna Ram on 4.12.2004. It will be relevant to mention here that on 4.12.04, it was submitted before the trial Court by the plaintiff in civil original No. 82/2004 that he will get justice through administrative authorities in the Abhiyan 'Administration towards Villages', therefore, the plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. On this plea, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with permission to file fresh suit by order dated 4.12.04.3. When said Dhanna Ram withdraw the suit, defendant Anada Ram in suit No. 82/04 apprehending his highhanded dispossession from said Dhanna Ram and his son Hanuman Ram, file...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj327; 2006(4)WLC76
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Om Prakash, Murti Devi, Rajbala, Munni Devi, Saroj Devi and Leela Ram @ Murari, the appellants herein, were put to trial in Sessions Case No. 19/2002 (32/2002) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated August 16, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Om Prakash:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and Tine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Under Section 148 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and half year.Under Section 341/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Murti Devi, Rajbala, Munni Devi, Saroj Devi and Leela Ram @ Murari:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and half year.Under Section 341/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigoro...
New India Assurance Company (the) Ltd. Vs. Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhutani and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC502; 2008ACJ342; RLW2006(3)Raj2366; 2006(3)WLC659
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel.2. This appeal by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. is directed against the Award of MACT, Beawar while deciding claim case No. 10/89 (138/88).3. Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhutani, an eminent Professor working in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short as 'AIIMS'), Delhi while on his way from Ranakpur to Delhi in Maruti Car No. DDU 1007 met with an unfortunate accident with Tanker bearing registration No. GRS 5988 being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1, driver Narain Singh near Beawar and as a result of said accident on 23.8.87, said Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhutani with his family suffered injuries and the claimant/appellant suffered the following injuries:(i) Vertical split fracture olecranon right ulna with a large lacerated would over back of elbow.(ii) Fracture acetabulum (Comminuted) with posterior dislocation of right hip.(iii) Multiple fractures of 1st, end 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th rib left hemithorax. There were doub...
Hanuman and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3047
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Hanuman, Dev Lal, Raghuveer Mandawara and Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Sharma, the appellants herein, and one Ummed were put to trial in Sessions Case No. 71/2001 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bundi. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated January 14, 2002 convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,000, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment.2. It is the prosecution case that on October 1, 1999 at 11.30 P.M. when Constable Hansraj of Police Station Talera went out of Police Station to drink water he saw a person drenched in the blood falling down near the water hut. On being enquired as to what had happened, the person informed that his name was Badri Lai and he resided in Kota. Raghuveer, Shyam, Deva and Hanuman Meena after picking up quarrel with him inflicted knife blows on his person. No sooner did Hansraj come i...
Raju @ Rajkumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj604
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Raju @ Raj Kumar and Khuma Ram, the appellants in these two appeals, and eleven others were found involved in the incident that occurred on November 25, 1998. Since appellant Khuma Ram absconded, appellant Raju and others were tried in Sessions Case No. 34/1999 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar. After appellant Khuma Ram surrendered, he was also tried in Sessions Case No. 33/2002 (34/1999). Learned trial Judge vide judgments dated January 04, 2001 and March 15, 2004 convicted and sentenced the appellants Raju @ Raj Kumar and Khuma Ram as under:Raju @ Rajkumar:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 323/149 IPC:Fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 147 IPC:Fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 3/25 Arms Act:To suffer rigorous impriso...
Bhupendra Kumar Vs. Makhanlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj184
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 29-5-2000 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 126/1982 (102/81) Bhupendra Kumar v. Makhanlal and Anr. , whereby the suit of appellant plaintiff has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that appellant filed a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of accounts stating therein, inter-alia, that a partnership firm in the name & style of M/s. Khubiram Makhanlal was carrying on its business at Sri Ganganagar in building materials, paints etc. with its partners Makhanlal & Mohar Singh (father of appellant-Plaintiff) but on 11 -4-1973 Mohar Singh separated himself from the partnership business and thereafter inducting the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 Vijay Kumar, a new partnership firm was created executing a deed of partnership which incorporated the terms and conditions of partnership and fixed thei...
Bihari Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3006
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by three accused appellants against the judgment dated 9th October 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar in Sessions Case No. 8/2001 thereby convicting accused Bihari Lal for offence under Section 302 IPC and accused Jaisa Ram and Sagarmal for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months. Accused Bihari Lal and all the accused were also convicted for offence under Section 447 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with a. fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, were required to further undergo simple imprisonment of seven days. Additionally, accused Sagarmal was convicted under Section 325 IPC whereas accused Jaisa Ram and Bihari Lal were convicted for offence under Section 325/34 IPC and for this all of them were sentence...
Ceo Vs. Md Ajeet Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj917
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The aforesaid three cases arise out of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 12.5.1997 related to the Estate Duty case of Late M.D. Ajit Singh, who expired on 19.4.1978.3. The Income Tax Reference No. 88/98 is a reference submitted by the Tribunal alongwith statement of case referring the following question as question of law for the opinion of this Court while partly allowing the application of the assessee under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 since replealed:(2)(a) whether where no time limit has been prescribed by the statute for completing the assessment the proceedings can be held to be barred by limitation of time if finalised after inordinate delay?4. While submitting the statement of case and referring the above question, the Tribunal has rejected to make reference of other questions suggested by the assessee, which are as under:(1)(a) Whether recording of reasons prior to i...
Prem Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2338; 2006(4)WLC167
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Prem Singh and Manohar Singh, the appellants herein, and one Sayar Singh were put to trial in Sessions Case No. 101/2001 (116/1998) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated November 26, 2001 convicted the appellants Prem Singh and Manohar Singh for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 5000, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.2. According to prosecution story Nahar Singh (now deceased)was beaten up in the intervening night of June 4 and 5 1998 in village Dhamora. When Inder Singh real brother of Nahar Singh, received information of the incident in the morning of June 5, 1998, he rushed to village Dhamora and found Nahar Singh lying injured behind the shops of Jagdish Singh Shekhawant. On being enquired Nahar Singh informed that Manohar Singh, Prem Singh (appellant) and five seven other persons inflicted b...
Prakash Chand and ors. Vs. Firm Pohap Singh Kishan Sahai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2763; 2006(4)WLC248
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These two cross appeals Under Section 100 CPC is a usual chequered. history of protracted litigation between landlord and tenant. A pair of two shops known as 'Jota' shop which has no wall in between but two separate entrance gates situated at Ramganj Bazar, Station Road, Alwar was given on rent of Rs. 110/- per month by the plaintiff Prakash Chand Goyal to the defendant, firm M/s. Pohap Singh Kishan Sahai. The suit was filed for eviction of the said shop on the ground of personal bona fide necessity and default in payment of rent. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court on 27.1.1984. The first appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was disposed of on 20.7.1985 by framing an additional issue No. 7 on the issue of partial eviction and the matter was remanded back under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC to the trial Court for return of its finding on the said additional issue. The trial Court vide its order dated 31.3.1986, after taking additional evid...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »