Rajasthan Court August 2006 Judgments
Roop Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3323
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. In these seven writ petitions, the petitioners, ex-army personnel, are aggrieved by the punishment awarded to them in Court Martial proceeding. They also seek to challenge the validity of the provisions relating to summary court martial under the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954. As vires has been challenged in all the petitions, they were heard together.2. In Writ Petition No. 2490/1987 petitioner Roop Singh was found by the Duty Officer running from the direction of out-ofbound area at about 0030 hours in the night of 17/18 May, 1987 when he was supposed to be on sentry duty for which he was tried by summary court martial for committing an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline under Section 63 of the Army Act. Before being subjected to court-martial, summary of evidence was recorded in presence of an independent witness, the charge and names of witness were made known to him. The petitioner refused to accept copy of the charge-sheet and the sum...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanki and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2494
N.N. Mathur, J.1. In both these appeals arising from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 28.2.2006, appellants Thavra and his wife Dhanki have been convicted of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment on the charge of murder of one Kalu. They have also been convicted of offence Under Section 201/34 IPC and sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to further undergo two months' S.I. The cause of murder is said to be the act of deceased Kalu, who alleged to have committed rape on appellant Mst. Dhanki.2. The prosecution case as disclosed during trial is that on 27.2.2005, a dead body was found on the bank of river viz; 'Kotda Mahuda'. The dead body was identified as that of one Kalu. The information of the incident was given to the S.H.O., Police Station, Nai. The police registered ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakant Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3337
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.9.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) -Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that deceased Mamta Rani daughter of PW. 1 Radhey Shyam, resident of Mandi Dabawali, District Sirsa, State of Haryana was married to Devendra son of Patiram, resident of Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan. Patiram's daughter Vimla was married to PW.6 Ganga Singh @ Girijacharan. Appellant Ramakant is the brother of PW-6 Ganga Singh. PW.6 Ganga Singh lived in the house purchased by his father-in-law Patiram along with his wife Vimla and brother appellant Ramakant. Patiram was a railway employee. He lived in a railwa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Meva Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj733
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The defendant-tenant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 16th of May, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Appeal No. 2/2004, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-landlord was allowed in respect of the disputed pqrtion of the house of the plaintiff-landlord, which was not rented out vide rent-note, but it was trespassed illegally by the defendant-tenant.3. Briefly stated the facts of the second appeal are that the plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant from the rented premises, arrears of rent and for possession of the disputed portion of the house, against the defendant-tenant in the lower Court. It was pleaded that the plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of Plot No. A-11, Niram Marg, Sikar House Colony, Jaipur. The defendant-tenant took on rent one room on the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3157
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order date 14.7.1992 whereby the learned Single while allowing the writ petition of the respondent herein quashed and set aside the order Annex. 9 dated 15th Sept., 1973 and also the consequential notice Annex. 16 dated 22.1.1980. By the impugned order Annex. 9 dated 15th Sept., 1973, the RIICO, namely, the appellant herein cancelled part of the land allotted to the respondents for setting up of Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Industry (in short Industry). The State Government through Collector, Sri Ganganagar executed a lease deed jointly in favour of the respondents Vijay Kumar Jain S/o Shri Rishab Dasji and Ganpat Rai S/o Late Shri Kaluramji on 5.2.1970 thereby leasing out a plot of land measuring 450' x 210' situated in their industrial estate, Sri Ganganagar for the purpose of setting up Industry. Apart from various other conditions, condition No. 4(iv) of the lease deed stipulated that the lessee shall set up in the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Satki Devi and anr. Etc. Vs. Tikam Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4721; RLW2007(2)Raj1620
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. A short but significant question of law regarding interpretation of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 is involved in these two appeals. The appeals arise from the same judgment of the learned single Judge. They were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Respondent No. 1, Tikam Singh, filed writ petition for quashing the order of the District Magistrate, Pali dated 16-6-2005 appointing Shri Mahesh Bora as advocate to conduct the trial in Sessions Case No. 85/2005 arising from FIR No. 36/2005 of Jaitaran Police Station, and the order of the Special Judge SC & ST Cases, Pali dated 30-9-2005 rejecting his (Tikam Singh's) application challenging the competence of Shri Mahesh Bora to conduct the trial. The respondent also sought direction to restrain Shri Bora from appearing as Special Public Prosecutor in the case.3. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Madan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj28
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. These two writ petitions have been preferred by the State of Rajasthan challenging the orders of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Service Tribunal') dated 9th July, 2001 passed in writ petition No. 4006/01 and dated 16th May, 2001 passed in writ petition No. 4007/01. By these two orders, the Tribunal decided two separate appeals preferred by the respondents as the question of law involved in these cases are identical therefore they are being decided together by a common judgment.2. The case of respondent No. 1 Madan Singh in writ petition No. 2006/01 is that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and on that basis Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi called him for interview on 2nd July, 1982 and thereafter appointed him vide order dated 13th July, 1982 on the post of Teacher Gr. Ill for a period of six months or till the availability of the selected candidates from Service Selection Commission in the pay scale of ...
Tag this Judgment!MoldIn @ Moliya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj43
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 3/9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.2. Succinctly 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur alleging 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. Having...
Tag this Judgment!Bulaki Ram Saini Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj4
Harbans Lal, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 246/2003 whereby the application Filed by the non-Section No. 2 Kedar Vyas for his substitution in place of Pyare Lal, complainant (since deceased) has been allowed.2. The relevant facts are that one Pyare Lal filed a complaint in the learned court below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') against the accused petitioner. After completion of the evidence of the complainant and recording of the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the complainant appears to have died at the stage of evidence of the defence. So, non-petitioner No. 2 filed an application on 1.7.2005 for permission to the substitute him in place of the complainant as his legal heir and to prosecute the aforesaid complaint which he wa...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Central Excise and Customs Di ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj382
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration in this appeal arising out of the order passed by customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/4471/04/NB(S) dated 10.6.2005:(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in dismissing the Appeal, filed by the Appellant?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant was not entitled to avail credit of Rs. 2,45,867/- in the Financial Year 2000-2001, particularly in wake of the fact that the spare parts (capital goods) in question were received in fag end of financial year and there was no condition of installation for taking of the credit with respect to spares?iii Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant was not entitled to avail entire credit in the Financial Year succeeding the year, in which the goods have been received in the factory as provided under Rule 57AG(1) of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »