Rajasthan Court August 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.
Tejmal and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: II(2007)DMC475; RLW2007(1)Raj14
Harbans Lal, J.1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kota in Criminal Revision No. 243/2005 whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 22.10.2005 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Itawa in Criminal Case No. 356/2005 taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A IPC and summoning them through non-bailable warrant has been upheld.2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant non-petitioner No. 2 Radha Bai filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Itawa on 15.6.2004 which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. During the course of investigation, both the parties entered into a compromise and filed a joint application before the investigating officer on the basis of which the negative final report was filed before the Court on 15.10.2004. The final report was accept...
Mool Chand Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj8
Harbans Lal, J.1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 11.10.2004 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahpura District Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 9/2004 arising out of FIR No. 138/2004 PS Shahpura for the offences under Sections 392 and 365 IPC whereby the learned court below has held that the petitioner is more than 18 years of age and is not & juvenile.2. The relevant facts are that on the complaint of complainant Rajendra Singh, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered on 11.3.2004. As the petitioner was not represented by a learned Counsel, amicus curiae was appointed who filed an application stating that the date of birth of the petitioner was 5.7.1987 as per the transfer certificate (TC) issued by the Government Middle School Paota and he being a juvenile, his case should be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial whereupon the learned court below conducted the so called inquiry with regard to his age and held as indicated a...
Vegepro Foods and Feeds Limited Vs. Jagannath Shreelal and Sons
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj357
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant is challenging the order dated 3.1.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Kota whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application under Order 9 Rue 13 Civil Procedure Code (henceforth, to be referred to as 'the Code', for short) for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 11.9.1998.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent had filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant-appellant. The suit was fixed for appellant's evidence on 18.8.1998. However, on that day, the lawyers at Kota were on strike. Therefore, Mr. V.N. Singh, the authorized representative appeared before the court and the next date was assigned was 4.9.1998. But inadvertently Mr. V.N. Singh informed his counsel that the next date in the case is 8.9.1998. Hence, on 4.9.1998 when the case was taken up, neither the counsel nor the authorized representative appeared before the learned Court. Therefore, on 4.9.1998 an ex-parte proceedings comm...
Prabhu Lal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj267
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant has challenged the order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota whereby the learned Judge has accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.5.1996 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, (North), Kota and has remanded the case back for decision in the suit afresh.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant was working as Lower Division Clerk (henceforth to be referred to as 'the L.D.C.', for short) in Drainage Division-11, (LDC), Chambal Command, Bundi. The appellant was on leave from 19.11.1974 and the Department duly accepted the said leave. On 19.3.1975 the appellant received an order signed by Shri Sadhu Ram, Executive Engineer whereby the appellant was suspended on the ground that a criminal offence has been registered against the appellant and is under investigation. Vide order dated 5.7.1975, the charge-sheet was issued to the appellant by Shri Sad...
Lalita Devi and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1503
Harbans Lal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeks quashing of F.I.R. No. 176/2006 P.S. Kotwali, Sikar for offence under Section 420 I.P.C. The only allegation in the F.I.R. is that after entering into an agreement with the complainant on 31.1.2006 the petitioners have filed an appeal before the competent court and has thus cheated the complainant non- petitioner No. 2.2. After hearing at length learned Counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the entire materials placed before me.3. From the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials collected during investigation, no offence Under Section 420 I.P.C. is even prima-facie disclosed.4. It is true that merely because remedy by way of civil suit is available there is no impediment in maintaining a criminal complaint provided the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence of cheating.5. In Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasiven and Anr. : 2001CriLJ1246 , default ...
Jaitdan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3180
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 26.4.2006 dismissing the appellant's writ petition seeking mandamus for staying the further proceedings in the departmental enquiry regarding the charges levelled in the memo of charge-sheet dated 12.1.06.3. Learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition solely on the ground that the petitioner was not able to explain as to what happened in the criminal trial pending against him and it is not shown by the learned Counsel as to whether compromise has been arrived at or not and as to whether the evidence of these witnesses has been recorded or not for which the petitioner was granted time by the court.4. In order to understand the controversy we take notice of the facts that a complaint was lodged by daughter-in-law of the petitioner under Section 498 A IPC alleging that he has demanded dowry and he harassed her for demand of dowry. In respect to the...
S.S. Brar Vs. K.S.L. Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj48
Harbans Lal, J.1. These six petitions, three by petitioners S.S. Brar and three by petitioner Ramesh Inder Singh have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 11.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 10, Jaipur City, Jaipur in three complaints taking cognizance against them along with 9 others for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called in short the 'Act').2. Since these petitions seek the same relief and the legal controversy involved in these petitions is identical and common, I have heard learned Counsel for the parties jointly on the admission of these petitions which are being disposed of by this common order.3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts which are not disputed are that complainant-non-petitioner is a Company duly incorporated and registered under the companies Act, 1956. It was earlier incorporated by the name of M/s. Krishna Texport India Ltd. which name has now been...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Supreme Transport Organisation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj232
Prakash Tatia, J.1. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally heard and decided.2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 22.2.2005 which was passed while considering the application under Order 2 Rule 2(2) CPC and the trial Court held that the civil suit for recovery of debt filed by the appellant bank is not triable by the Civil Court and it can be entertained only by Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') constituted under Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act of 1993').3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant bank filed a suit for return of goods which were delivered to the defendant/respondent transporter against which some financial benefits were availed by M/s. Derby Textiles Ltd. and who did not pay the amount to the appellant bank. The appellant also prayed that the money decree, in alternate, of Rs. 43,09,144/- be passed. The suit was filed on 8.12.2000. The r...
B.A. Govindraj Vs. Umang Boards P. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas559(Raj); RLW2007(1)Raj749; [2007]80SCL15(Raj)
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, a technical consultant, has approached this Court with the following prayer:(i) The respondent-company Umang Boards P. Ltd., be wound up by the court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.(ii) A liquidator be appointed to take over the charge of the company.(iii) Payment of Rs. 11,00,000 along with interest at 18 per cent. per annum from August, 2002, be made to the petitioner.2. Upon failure to honour the consultation fee the petitioner gave a statutory notice to the respondent-company (for short 'the company') under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), demanding due payment towards principal amount with interest but the respondent-company failed to make payment within statutory period, as a result of which the petitioner was led to file instant company petition for winding up under Section 439 read with Section 433(e) of the Act.3. It is averred in the petition that the company approached the petitioner for pr...
Singhal Builders Vs. Executive Engineer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj747
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard rival submissions.2. In this application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the applicant seeks to appoint independent arbitral tribunal.3. Clause 23 provides as under:If any question, difference or objection whatsoever shall, arise in any way in connection with or arising out this instrument or the meaning of operation of any part thereof or the rights, duties or liabilities of either party, then save in so far as the decision of any such matter as herein before provided for and been so decided, every such matter consisting a total claim of Rs. 50,000/- or above, whether its decision has been otherwise provided for and whether if has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated shall be referred for decision to the empowered standing committee which would consist of the following:(i) Administrative Secretary concerned(ii) Finance Secretary or his nominee not below the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »