Rajasthan Court February 2007 Judgments
Devendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj509
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment dated April 24, 2002 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur, whereby the appellant was convicted Under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.2. I have learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned public prosecutor and scanned the material on record.3. I have no doubt that the appellant was rightly convicted Under Section 307 IPC. Reasons given by learned trial Judge are cogent and valid and I do not see any ground to differ from them. I therefore maintain the conviction of appellant Under Section 307 IPC. But so far as the sentence is concerned, I find that Mahesh (PW. 2) sustain injuries on non vital parts of his body. The appellant was arrested on January 22, 2002 and has remained in custody for a period of more than five years.3.1. It is contended by lear...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi (Smt.) Vs. Mukesh Mordia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2709
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Among the Hindus marriage is supposed to last for seven lives. But at times, a marriage barely survives seven years. What is hoped to be a blissful existence quickly turns into a bitter experience for the young couple. But, c'est la vie! (Such is life!) The appellant-wife is challenging the judgment dated 12.7.2006 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the learned Judge has granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent husband under Section 13(1)(a) and Section 13(1)(1)(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short).2. The appellant and the respondent (henceforth to be referred to as 'the wife and the husband' respectively, for short) have narrated two different and contrary sets of facts, which need to be dealt with in detail. According to both the parties, their marriage was solemnized on 22.2.2002, in Jaipur, in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites. While the husband was the son of an ex-M.L.A.,...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Residency Palace Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj87
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.5.2005 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant along with another writ petition preferred by Hotel Rajputana Palace. Facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:2. The appellant which is engaged in hotel business obtained licence for retail sale of foreign liquor in the hotel premises in terms of the Rajasthan Excise (Grant of Hotel Bar/Club Bar/Restaurant Beer Bar Licences) Rules, 1973 read with the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. The case of the appellant is that it held licence for the period 2004-05 expiring on 31.st March, 2005. On 28.2.2005 the appellant submitted application after depositing the required amount in terms of Rule 72A of the Rules of 1956 which requires application for renewal should be made at least one month before commencement of the year along with the prescribed licence fee Rs. 1.50 lakhs, and it was entitled to h...
Tag this Judgment!Son Kanwar (Smt.) and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN308
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The matter appears to have a checkered history. The land in dispute originally belonged to one Chhotu Singh. The said Chhotu Singh alleged to have given the land to Datar Singh, now represented by the petitioners No. 1 to 6. On the basis of alleged consent given by the said Chhotu Singh mutation was also made in favour of Datar Singh on 19.09.1960. Subsequently, part of the land had been sold by Datar Singh to one Har Sahay, petitioner No. 7 in the present writ petition in the year 1969. Chhotu Singh also died in the year 1967.2. A suit for declaration, ejectment and cancellation of sale was filed by the legal heirs of Chhotu Singh before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa. As many as 10 issues were framed by the trial Court. The petitioners-defendants pleaded that the land in dispute has been given by Chhotu Singh to Datar Singh of his free will and, as per consent given by Chhotu Singh, necessary entries were also made in favour of Datar Singh in the revenue record...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1428
ORDER TO REDUCE THE CONGESTION FROM THE HIGH COURT ROAD:33. This Court by order dated 21.11.2000 also directed the State Government to explore the feasibility of shifting of main offices and Courts including the High Court to reduce the pressure on the existing main route. This part of the direction was not taken seriously by the State authorities, as such, a further direction was given by the order dated 3rd August, 2001. The order runs in about 11 pages. We do not consider it necessary to refer the entire order. The operative part of the order reads as follows:Consequently, we direct the State Government to take up the matter of construction of a new High Court Building at Jodhpur on top priority. A copy of this order shall be delivered to the Chief Secretary and Law Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan latest by 7.8.2001. The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan is directed to take up the matter at the appropriate higher level before the State Government as well as the Central G...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Harijan and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2332; RLW2007(3)Raj1950
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, therefore, the same are being disposed of finally by this common judgment.2. The challenge in both these appeals is made to the judgment and order dated 5th of November, 2001, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track), Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 115/2001, whereby accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:Accused Conviction Sentenced tounderSectionAjay Harijan 376, IPC To ten year's rigorous imprison-ment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-;in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo one year's ri-gorous imprisonment120B, IPC To one year's rigorous impri-sonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-;in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo three months'rigorous imprisonmentVineet S/o 376 read To seven years rigorous impri-Murari Lal with sonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-;Section in default of payment of fine,to further undergo one year'simprisonment...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Nirankari Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2983; RLW2008(1)Raj477
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated March 27, 2004 of the learned Special Judge (Communal Riots/Mansingh Murder) Jaipur whereby Satish Nirankari, the appellant before us, was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302, IPC.To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 309, IPC.To suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment.Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story is woven like this:Informant Pramod Bhatnagar (P.W. 12) handed over a written report on November 2, 1995 at Police Station Gandhi Nagar Jaipur with the averments that on the preceding day around 5. 30 p.m. his daughter Pooja (since deceased) proceeded to attend MBA classes. When she did not return till 9 p.m. he became worried. Around 10 p.m. he was informed by one Ashok that Pooja was admitted to SM...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2284
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The Union of India has come up in this writ petition against the order dated 2.7.1996 passed by Estate Officer (SDM Jhalawar) and dated 10.10.2001 by the Appellate Authority (District Judge, Jhalawar) respectively under Sections 4 and 9 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short the Act of 1964).2. Factual matrix of the case is that the Municipal Council, Jhalawar filed an application under Section 4 of the Act of 1964 inter aiia on the premise that the building in which the post office, Mangalpur at Jhalawar was housed was let out to Union of India by the Municipality on 1.1.68 at the monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. The Union Government owes to the Council payment of sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards arrears of rent as on 19.1.95. It was therefore prayed that the order for eviction of the Post Office be passed and vacant possession of the building should be ordered to be handed over to the Municipal Council.3. The Union of India ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tci Infrastructure Finance Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: [2008]146CompCas113(Raj); [2007]79SCL35(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner TCI Infrastructure Ltd. has submitted this petition under Sections 391 and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act of 1956') for sanctioning scheme of compromise/arrangement with the secured creditors of the company.2. TCI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. (hereinafter shall be referred as the petitioner company) was originally incorporated as TCI Housing Finance Company Limited on 18-5-1995 changed to TCI Infrastructure Finance Limited on 22-4-1996 having its registered office at Meghalaya Tower, Church Road, Jaipur.3. The position authorized issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the petitioner company as on 31-3-2006 is detailed out in para No. 2 of the petition.4. The main objects of the petitioner company as set out in the object clause of its Memorandum of Association, have been detailed out in para No. 4 of the petition.5. The petitioner company incurred heavy losses resulting into large deficit in cash flow and adversely affected the liquid...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramesh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN10(1)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.2. This appeal is barred by 40 days. Having heard learned Counsel we are satisfied that appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The appeal may now be registered. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties we have heard the appeal on merit also.3. The respondent No. 1 whose services were terminated by the appellant has raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court Jodhpur.4. The termination was found to be invalid being in volition of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further that affect was not given to Section 25 H read with Section 25J of the said Act. As a consequence the termination order was held to be bad and the respondent No. 1 was directed to be reinstated with 25% of the back wages w.e.f. 06.09.1999 untill the date of reinstatment.5. The award of the Labour C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »