Rajasthan Court June 2006 Judgments
Amra Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj699
Chatra Ram, V.J.1. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioner against whom investigation is pending for the offences under Section 376 I.P.C. in FIR No. 150/06 P.S. Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the prosecutrix is sister-in-law of petitioner who is 35 years of age. According to her affidavit dated 29.5.2006 and statement Under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the petitioner committed rape with her consent and thus, it cannot be a case of rape and the trial will take time so the petitioner may be released on bail.3. I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned P.P. on behalf of the State and have also perused the relevant documents placed before me.4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but taking into consideration the submissions made at the bar, the materials on record and all other facts and circumstances of the case. I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.5. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhim Sen Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3643; RLW2006(3)Raj2411; 2006(4)WLC579
K.S. Rathore, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus for quashment of FIR No. 21/2006 dated 27.01.2006 registered at Police Station Transport Nagar, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 469, 471, 120B, IPC, and Section 65 of Information Technology Act 2000.2. During, the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has deleted the offence under Section 65 of the J.T. Act, 2000 from the purview of investigation and has proceeded to undertake further investigation only in regard to the offences under Sections 465, 469, 471,120-B, IPC.3. In the First Information Report, it has been alleged that some news items were published in the Newspaper which were containing aspersions against Cabinet Minister in Government of Rajasthan Shri Rajendra Singh Rathore, founded on some statement of one Ved Prakash Saini. In the report it has also been stated that on the basis of the newspaper reporting an enquiry was launched by the I.G.P. (S...
Tag this Judgment!Bhiwadi Metal Rollwell (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj58; 2006(4)WLC575
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. Since both the writ petitions involves similar controversy, the same are decided by this common order.(SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1568/03)2. The petitioner applied for subsidy under the State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1990 and same was granted vide letter dated 31-3-1994 by the State Level Committee in its 28th Meeting held on 28-: 3-1994. Total amount of subsidy was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 17, 82,070/-.3. It is not disputed that the factory was not in operation on account of electric disconnection and same was restored on 30-1-1997. Since the subsidy amount is not disbursed, the petitioner requested through several letters to release the amount of subsidy of Rs. 17,82,070/- and it was learnt that the RIICO has retained the subsidy as being the disbursing agency. And subsidy amount to the tune of Rs. 8,91,000/- has been disbursed on 24-9-1994.4. It is also not disputed that the interest and installment demanded by the RIICO has not been paid in ti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sutlej Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas394(Raj); [2009]89SCL73(Raj); 2006(4)WLC665
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner companies, i.e., Sutlej Indus- 1 tries Ltd. and Sutlej Textiles and Industries Ltd. filed the present petition under sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act seeking approval of the scheme of arrangement so as to be binding upon all the shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors.2. This Court on January 25, 2006, issued notice of this petition to the 2 Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Company Affairs, NOIDA (UP) and also directed for publication of the same in two newspapers Rajasthan Patrika, Kota edition, and the Times of India, Jaipur edition. The hearing of the petition was notified to be March 8, 2006.3. The notices were sent for publication on February 6, 2006, to the editors 3 of Rajasthan Patrika and Times of India. The notice in the Rajasthan Patrika was published on February 11, 2006, whereas it was published in the Times of India on February 10, 2006. In response to the notice the Regional Director sent his affidav...
Tag this Judgment!Kayam Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1505
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari V., J.1. This miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' hereafter) has been submitted by the petitioner-convict Kayam Khan in the circumstances somewhat peculiar thus:The petitioner submitted a revision petition before this Court against the judgment and order dated 7-6-1993 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 62 1993 that was directed against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1986 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 105/1983. It appears from the material placed on record that learned appellate Court sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for one year's rigorous imprisonment and as directed payment of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Uttamaram who had died in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a truck by the petitioner on 22-8-1981. 2. The revision petition afo...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar and ors. Vs. Director, Local Bodies and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2376; 2006(3)WLC571
Mohamad Rafiq, J.1. The appellants in this special appeal have assailed the judgment dated 3.1.2006 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the writ petition, the appellants challenged the order dated 22.4.2004 passed by the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, under which the revision petition filed by Murti Shriman Thakur Bihariji Virajman, through its Pujari Mahant Rakeshdas Chela Shri Goverdhandas (respondent No. 2) was allowed and the resolution No. 9(1) 2 dated 7.7.96 passed by the Municipal board, Udaipurwati regularising possession of the appellants on the land in question was set aside. The revision petition was filed by respondent No. 2 Under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 which provides that the State Government or any authority authorised by the State Government may, so as to satisfy itself about the correctness, illegality or propriety of an order passed by or on behalf of the board, call...
Tag this Judgment!Sumitra Devi (Smt.) Vs. Ratan Lal Through Lrs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2381; 2006(3)WLC767
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 31.3.1984, allowing the appeal of the tenant-defendant preferred against the decree for eviction dated 5.7.1982.2. Earlier landlord Badri Narayan (appellant No. 1) filed on suit for eviction of his tenant Ratan Lai (deceased) which was registered as CO. Suit No. 832/73. The ground for eviction of the tenant was only default in payment of renl. The tenant was protected from his eviction otherwise than on the ground as provided under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950'). As per Section 13(1)(a) of the Act of 1950, in case of default in payment of mil for six months by the tenant, the landlord can institute the suit for eviction of the tenant but one opportunity is given to the tenant to avoid the eviction by making payment in the court as determined by the court Under Section 13(3) read with Sub-section (4) of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Saini and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3525
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17-2-2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra in F.R. No. 13/2006.2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by one Niranjan Lal before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra on 6-1-2006 alleging that one Dinesh Kumar was running a shop of sweets at Sahwa Bus Stand. On 20-4-2005, the complainant and his other friends were taking breakfast in the said shop and at that time the complainant was not having cash in his hand, therefore, a cheque of Rs. 200/- was given to accused-Dinesh Kumar. It was further alleged that the complainant due to old relation with the shop keeper issued a cheque bearing No. 994725 without mentioning the date and could not write the amount in words upon the said cheque on account of being in hurry. It was further alleged that the accused by way of making conspiracy incr...
Tag this Judgment!Bheru Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4344
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the author of FIR No. 216/98, P.S., Jaitaran. Bheru Singh, present petitioner, lodged the said FIR with the allegation that he was going along with his younger brother Bahir Singh to deposit the fee of their sister at the school; but, on the way, non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 halted them and assaulted inflicting injuries, On the basis of the allegations in the FIR, the police registered case Under Sections 341 and 323/24, I.P.C. for investigation. Non-petitioner No. 3 also filed an FIR being FIR No. 220/98, P.S., Jaitaran whereupon case Under Sections 341 and 323/24, I.P.C. was registered for investigation against the present petitioner and others. In both the aforesaid FIRs, viz., FIR No. 216/98 and FIR No. 220/98, the police filed challan, however, in FIR No. 220/98, P.S., Jaitaran, filed by the non-petitioner against the present petitioner and others, the polie filed challan for offences Under Sections 341,...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rama Gupta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1758
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal of the insurance company is directed against the award of M.A.C.T., Kishangarhbas dated 30.4.2005 while deciding the Claim Case No. 178 of 2000 in a road accident which took place on 24.10.2000 at 9 a.m.2. The deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta while going on a motor cycle from Jaipur to Pratap Nagar, Sanganer near Jaipur was hit from back side by a half body truck No. RSM 325 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Jagdish Prasad, respondent No. 1 and as result of the said accident deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta, 36 years of age, lost his life. He was working as a teacher in Government Senior Secondary School and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 10,725.3. Deceased left behind his widow and two young sons aged 5 years and 4 years respectively and old aged mother and father.4. The claim filed before the Tribunal was to the extent of Rs. 65,74,500. The Tribunal after arriving at the finding of rash and negligent driving in favour of claimants proc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »