Rajasthan Court March 2007 Judgments
Takhat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj385; 2006(4)WLC679
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In the flowing darkness of night Chauth Malwas mercilessly killed. Girraj Prasad, son of Chauth Mal, who at the trial was examined as eye witness of the occurrence gave graphic details of the incident. Placing reliance on the sole testimony of Girraj Prasad, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced Takhat Singh, Narendra Singh @ Nehru Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Bapu Singh and Rameshwar, appellants herein, as under:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer seven days imprisonment.Under Section 447 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Bapu Singh:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer seven days imprisonment.Under Section 447 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Under Section 148 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Rameshwa...
Tag this Judgment!Prem and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj506
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, five in number, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Bayana (Bharatpur) in Sessions Case No. 66/1995, who vide Judgment dated March 5, 2001 convicted and sentenced them as under:Prem, Panda, Dilip, Bharat and Abhay Singh:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer seven days rigorous imprisonment.Abhay Singh:Under Section 307 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer seven days rigorous imprisonment.Prem, Panda, Dilip and Bharat:Under Section 307/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer seven days rigorous imprisonment.Prem and Panda:Under Section 147 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Dilip, Bharat and Abhay Singh:Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Substantive sentences were ord...
Tag this Judgment!inderpal Singh Vs. Avtar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3547
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal arises cut of the order dated 26.8.2006, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 4, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application of the appellant for appointment of Receiver/Administrator for managing the affairs of Guru Nanak Senior Secondary School and Guru Harkishan Public School.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 5, the Guru Singh Sabha Shiksha Samiti (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Society', for short), is a registered society under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, having Registration No. 81/78-79 and has its Head Office at Bharatpur. According to the Constitution of the Society, the object of the Society is to impart education to children, to teach them discipline, to encourage feeling of nationalism amongst them, to teach them about the Punjabi language, etc. For this purpose, the Society runs two schools in Bharatpur, namely the Guru Nanak Senior Secondary...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Singh @ Yogender Singh @ Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj510
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar camp Neemka Thana, who vide Judgment dated March 28, 2003 convicted and sentenced him as under:Under Section307 IPC:To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1, 000/- in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 324 IPC:To undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer fifteen days rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 323 IPC:To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 341 IPC:Fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer five days rigorous imprisonment.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. On November 10, 2001 at 3.30 PM parcha bayan (Ex. P-3) of injured Jitendra Kumar (Pw. 1) was recorded wherein he stated that on the said day around 2.30 PM while he was returning from Ratanpura to his Dhani the appellant inflicted knife blows on his arm, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dal Chand Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN200
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order Annx.7 dt. 03.07.1992, whereby he was dismissed from service.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that on 05.01.1984, the petitioner, while holding the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, was found involved in a criminal case for the offences under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the P.C. Act' hereinafter) and Section 161 IPC. He was put to trial in Criminal Case No. 1/1985 before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases Court, Udaipur (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter). On trial, the trial Court, vide judgment and order dt. 13.11.1987, convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 161 IPC and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Alka Dave and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2547; RLW2007(3)Raj1987
R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Since all the appeals and the cross- objections arise out of. the same award, namely, award dated 23.2.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that in the midnight of 30/31.7.1989 while the family of Uchutshankar Dave was travelling in a Maruti Car, bearing Registration No. DNA 6920, from Delhi to Jaipur, as soon as the car reached village Kanwarpura at about 4:00 A.M., the car tried to overtake a truck which was in front of it. However, while overtaking the said truck, the car struck against another truck which was standing on the extreme right side of the road. Consequently, while the driver, Vivek Anand expired on the spot, other passengers sustained injuries. Therefore, the dependents of the driver and the injured persons filed separate claim petitions before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate their cases, nine witnesses were examined by th...
Tag this Judgment!Mahi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2860
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case and appoint him on the post of Constable (G.D.).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement Annex. 1 dated 14.6.2005 inviting applications from the eligible persons for appointment on the post of constable (General Duty, Band, Horse Rider and Operator). The petitioner finding himself eligible submitted application for appointment on the post of Constable (G.D.) vide Annex.2. The petitioner appeared in the examination and thereafter he was called to appear in the physical test/ interview vide call letter dated 24.2.2006 Annex.3. The petitioner appeared in the physical test held on 12.3.2006 and on 13.3.2006 he was declared passed and the result thereof was published in the newspaper vide Annex.4. However, the petitioner was not issued the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj389
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, ten in number, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4 Jhalawar Camp Aklera in Sessions Case No. 107/2003, who vide judgment dated September 4, 2003 convicted and sentenced them as under:Narayan Singh, Ram Lal, Madan Lal, Phool Singh, Rai Singh, Laxmi Narayan, Baij Singh @ Vijay Singh, Nanda, Kanwar Lal and Sumitra Bai:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer one year rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 326/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 325/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine Rs. 300, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 324/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer one month rigoro...
Tag this Judgment!Manohari Devi (Smt.) Charitable Trust Vs. J.V.V.N. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN221
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Leard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. By way of filing present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dt. 20.05.2004 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Churu.3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that on 13.01.2003 respondents Nos. 1 and 2 issued a bill of electric charges for the month of January, 2003 in which present dues were shown as electric charges Rs. 12628.62/- paisa and Rs. 572.50/- paisa as electric duty total amount was shown as Rs. 13,201/-. It is further contended that in addition to the above amount in column of other dues a amount of Rs. 82,115/- was shown as electric charges and Rs. 3,023.10/- paisa as electric duty total amount which was shown as Rs. 98,339/-.4. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no electric bill was due against the petitioner Trust as they were regularly paying the electricity bill and the Meter which was installed in Dharamshala for recording ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. Pradeep Siroya and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR906]; RLW2007(3)Raj1731
Govind Mathur, J.1. These two petitions for writ are preferred to question validity, propriety and correctness of the award dated 14.12.1994 passed by Labour Court, Udaipur answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government in following terms:Whether the action of the Management, Rajpura Dariba Mines, M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Siroyason of Shri Sardar Singh, Senior Assistant, Employee No. 32168 w.e.f. 19.1.1991 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?2. Before passing the award impugned the Labour Court vide order dated 5.12.1994 held the domestic inquiry fair and in accordance with law. The Labour Court also held that Shri Pradeep Siroya (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was rightly found guilty for the misconduct but held the penalty of discharge from service disproportionate to the delinquency proved. Accordingly, while exercising powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »