Rajasthan Court July 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.
Dilip Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1509
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, nine in number, along with co-accused Santu, were put to trial before the learned Special Judge (Communal Riots/Mansingh Murder) Jaipur, who vide judgment dated May 18, 2000, while acquitting co-accused Santu, convicted and sentenced them as under:Appellants Dilip Singh & Dasrath SinghUnder Section 302 and 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- , in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellants Mahaveer Singh, Rajveer Singh, Sudepal, Damodar, Ravindra Singh, Diwan Singh and Khem Singh:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- , in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 147 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story is woven like thus:O...
Sensport International Vs. A.D.J. No. 1
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC582
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Sleeping over his rights, confronted with an execution proceeding, the appellant challenged the ex parte order after a lapse of seven years, hoping to put back the historical clock to the year 1999. Such a belated effort has been rejected by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Alwar vide his order dated 11.5.2006. Hence this appeal before us.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff No. 2 M/s. Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. entered into a contract with respondent-defendant No. 1 Mourne Clothing Co. Ltd. for supplying cloth to the respondent No. 1. The appellant was actively involved in the procurement of the cloth and the payment thereof to the respondent-plaintiff. Thus, the appellant acted as an agent of the respondent defendant No. 1. Till 1994 the payments were regularly made. However, thereafter certain disputes arose between the parties with regard to the quality of the cloth being supplied. Despite the fact that subsequently the quality of the cloth...
Nagar Parishad Vs. Shabana Parveen and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC861
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant non-applicant has challenged the award dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Tonk, whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded Rs. 2,07,980 to the respondent-applicant for the death of Mr. Mohd. Umer.2. Briefly, the facts are that Mohd. Umer was working as a Naka Guard in the Nagar Parishad, Tonk. During the independence celebration he was assigned the work of helping the electrician with the RSEB for repairing the road lights in Tonk. On 14.8.1996 while he was helping Nasir Ahmed, he fell from the electric pole and sustained head injuries. Subsequently, he expired in the hospital. The respondent-applicants, who comprised the widow and the children of Mr. Mohd. Umer, filed a claim petition under the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') for a just compensation from the Nagar Parishad. The Nagar Parishad contested the case. While it admitted the fact that Mohd. Umer was their employee, it...
Ramji Lal Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3042
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Plaintiff-appellants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 21 st of April, 1981 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Dholpur in Civil Appeal No. 3/80, whereby he allowed the appeal of the defendant No. 1 Om Prakash and set aside the judgment and decree dated 20th of March, 1972 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, at Dholpur, in Civil Suit No. 26/71 (380/66), whereby the lower court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for pre-emption under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966. This Court admitted this second appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law on 24.9.1982:Whether the document Exhibit A-1 dated 15.12.1959, whereby Badri Prasad and Ramjilal renders purported to sell some immovable property to Om Prakash as vendee, can be relied on by the vendee to prove his status as a co-sharer in the immovable prop...
Laxmi Devi (Smt.) and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj310
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 applied for seeking appointment on the post of Class IV servant in lieu of service of their father Late Shri Om Prakash Mathur under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Governments (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975. The application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 26.5.98 in view of Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 as the petitioner was not able to submit her application within 45 days. The present petition is directed against the order dated 26.5.98.2. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the relevant rules and the judgments rendered by this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in : [1994]3SCR893 has held as under:The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground, it appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the i...
Jai Ram Jat and ors. Vs. Prabhu Dayal Jat and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC74
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 24.2.1996 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur.2. The brief relevant facts as regards this appeal are that the deceased Ramesh was travelling by truck RNG 1031 which was going from Delhi to Jaipur. When the above truck reached near Gordhanpura at about 5.30 a.m. on 9.7.1988 suddenly another truck RNE 2676 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 1 came from opposite side and collided with the above truck as a result of which the deceased Ramesh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The deceased was the only son of the claimant-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and the claimant-appellant No. 3 is the wife of the deceased. Respondent No. 2 is the owner and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the truck RNE 2676. The learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 1,82,800 in favou...
Shanker Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2372
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.6.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara convicting the first appellant Shankerlal of offence Under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. Appellants Suresh alias Sanju and Lalu have been convicted of offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and m default, to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts as emerged during the trial are that the wife of deceased Mst. Geeta (P.W. 3) is the daughter of third appellant Lalu and sister of first and second appellants Shankerlal and Suresh. Geeta had married to one Ravi at lndore. Out of the said wedlock, she gave birth to three children. It is alleged that Ravi was drunkard and he used to beat Mst. Geeta, as such, she deserted him and contracted...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bajrang Textiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Raj)287
1. Compliance of the office objection is dispensed with. Office to register the appeal as regular appeal.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.3. The brief facts and circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are that a search took place on 20th Nov., 1997 and notice under Section 158BC was issued on 7th Sept., 1998. In compliance of which, the assessee submitted a return on 20th Oct., 1998, declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 2,44,000 for the block period. Only one day before the period for completing the block assessment was expiring, the AO directed the assessee to have the accounts subjected to special audit in terms of Section 142(2A) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, by dint of time, having the accounts subjected to special audit, the limitation for completing the block period was sought to be extended and the assessment order was ultimately passed on 24th May, 2000 by excluding the extended period for getting the special audit conducted of the books of account of assess...
Nathu Lal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3479; 2006WLC(Raj)UC402
Harbans Lal, J.1. The instant petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by petitioner Nathulal against the order dated 17.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bandikui, District Dausa in Sessions No. 8/2005 whereby the application filed by the petitioner on 14.11.2005 Under Section 319 Cr. P.C. has been rejected.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition and necessary for its disposal are that the petitioner-complainant lodged a first information report at P.S. Bhanpur on 27.8.2004 whereupon a criminal case being F.I.R. No. 325/2004 came to be registered for offences Under Sections 304-B and 120-B I.P.C.3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against accused Jagdish Prasad and investigation.was kept pending against Smt. Ghisi Devi, accused non-petitioner No. 2 Under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. It being a case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions was committed for trial. The trial court after framing charges against accused...
L.R. of Mishrimal Vs. L.Rs. of Sukh Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2890
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The defendant has filed second appeal in a suit for eviction filed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity, default in payment of rent and subletting/parting with possession of part of the rented premises.2. The learned trial Court found the question of default in favour of the plaintiff and giving benefit of Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII 1950), hereafter to be referred to as 'the Act', the suit was not decreed on that count. Regarding the other two grounds, being reasonable and bonafide necessity, being covered by issues No. 5, and 11, and subletting/parting with possession being covered by issue No. 4, were decided against the plaintiff, and thus, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 6.3.79. In appeal, learned District Judge, vide impugned judgment reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 4, and held, that the defendant has allowed Tulsi Das to sit on the Chabutari,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »