Rajasthan Court March 2007 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.
Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN336
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of orders Annex.-1, 2 and 4 whereby the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nohar passed orders for effecting recovery of Rs. 54,892 (Annex.-1) and Rs. 74,623/- (Annex.-2).2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1995 and, during that tenure, certain constructions were made for the development of the village. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that notice/orders Annex.1, 2 and 4 have been issued by the Vikas Adhikari directing him to deposit the excess amount paid for the purpose of construction work in the village area. Assailing these order, it is vehemently argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that before passing the said orders for fixing the responsibility for the excess amounts it is the duty of the authority first to hold proper enquiry and thereafter suf...
Lachhi Ram and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN222
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner Lachchi Ram, who is now being represented by his legal representatives, has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment of the Board of Revenue dt. 05.06.1997 whereby the revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act') filed by him against the order dt. 20.03.1991 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner was dismissed thereby upholding order of the Additional Collector Tonk dt. 31.03.1987 setting aside mutation in favour of the petitioner. He has further challenged the order dt. 29.02.1997 by which his petition seeking review of the aforesaid judgment dt. 05.07.1997 was dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue.2. Dispute pertains to a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 1992 measuring 7 bighas and 13 biswas situated in village Chauru in Tehsil Uniyara of District Tonk. This land was entered in the name of petitioner Lachchi Ram on the basis of his long possession since Svt. 2015 (equivalent ...
Khayali Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN72
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of orders Annex.-1, 6, 7 and 8 effecting recovery.2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1995 and, during that tenure, certain constructions were made for the development of the village. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that notice/ orders Annex.-1, 6, 7 and 8 have been issued by the Vikas Adhikari, Nohar, District Collector, Hanumangarh and Tehsildar (Revenue), Nohar respectively, directing him to deposit the excess amount paid for the purpose of construction work in the village area. Assailing these order, it is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the said orders for fixing the responsibility for the excess amounts it is the duty of the authority first to hold proper enquiry and thereafter sufficient opportunity of being h...
Prem Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN564
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge order Annex.-1 dt. 10.02.2003 passed by Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Sriganganager whereby the learned appellate authority set aside order dt. 21.02.2002 passed by the Executive Engineer upon remand.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners have agricultural land in chak 4Z in Sriganganagar district. It so happened that upon bifurcation of the chak, part of the petitioners' land remained in chak 4Z-I and part of the land was transferred in chak 4Z-II. The petitioners made an application for transfer of their land in chak 4Z-I to chak 4Z-II.3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners contended before the authorities that they are not getting proper irrigation facility because the level of the land is higher and they have another land in chak 4Z-II also. Upon their application report was submitted by the concerned Jr. Engineer and S.D.O. on 05....
Ashok Kumar JaIn Vs. Sumati Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1836
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant is challenging the judgment dated 13.2.98 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellant's application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short). Throughout this judgment the appellant shall be referred as the husband and the respondent as the wife for the sake of clarity.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the husband and wife were married according to Hindu rites on 30.10.90 at Jaipur. According to the husband for the first few days when the wife stayed at her matrimonial home, she behaved well with his family. However, upon her return from her parental house, after a few days of the marriage, her behaviour suddenly changed. He further claimed that he is the only son in the family. He has two small sisters and old father to look after. Even prior to her marriage, he had informed the wife's family that since there is no one to lo...
Amar Singh Rathore (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj544
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties on the application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent for vacation of interim order dated 27.2.2007.2. The reply to the said application has been filed by Counsel for the petitioner.3. This Court on 27.2.2007 passed the following order:Issue notice to the respondents of the writ petition as also of stay petition. Rule is made returnable within two weeks.Meanwhile, operation of the order dated 22.2.2007 (Anx. 2) shall remain stayed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Director, Information and Public Relation, Government of Rajasthan.4. The preliminary objection of Mr. R.D. Rastogi, counsel for the respondent is that on 27.2.2007, the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the order of voluntary retirement dated 22.2.2007 was rejected but despite that the writ petition has not been amended, therefore, same has become infructuous and in infructuo...
R.S.R.T.C. and Etc. Etc. Vs. Vaibhav Kumar and ors. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ473; AIR2007Raj147; RLW2007(4)Raj3022
R.M. Lodha, J.1. In this group of 30 Special Appeals, the specific question that needs to be considered by us is whether the right of special appeal from the judgment/order of the single Judge passed in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been taken away by Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure amended vide Act 22 of 2002 which came into effect from 1st July. 2002.2. Some of the matters out of this group came up for admission on 12th February, 2007. At the time of motion hearing, the Division Bench presided over by one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) expressed doubt about the maintainability of such appeals in view of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The issue being an important one in law, a general notice was given to the members of the Bar and the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association to assist the Court, if they so desired. Consequently, the entire group of these special appeals has been posted before us for consideration of the aforesaid question...
Dinesh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2864
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Dinesh, Kamlesh and Ramwati, the appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City District Karauli, who vide judgment dated November 29, 2002 convicted each of them under Section 304B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.2. The informant Ashok Kumar (Pw. 10) submitted a written report at Police Station Hindaun City on October 29, 1994 with the averments that his sister Beena (since deceased) was married to appellant Dinesh on November 25, 1987. Soon after the marriage the appellants started harassing Beena in connection with the demand of dowry and ultimately murdered her on October 27, 1994. It also appears from record that prior to filing of the report by Ashok Kumar, proceedings under Section 174 CrPC were instituted on the report lodged by appellant Dinesh on October 28, 1994. After usual investigation the police arrived at the conclusion that it was dowry death and charg...
Sushila Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3944
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401, Cr. P.C. is preferred by the accused-petitioner against the order dated 22-9-2006 passed by the District. & Sessions Judge, Bundi, whereby he allowed the application under Section 439(2), Cr. P.C. filed by the State through Public Prosecutor and quashed and set-aside the bail order dated 14-6-2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi and directed the trial Court to issue arrest warrant against the accused-petitioner in Criminal Case No. 416/2006 arising out of FIR No. 110/2006, registered at P.S. Kotwal, Bundi for the offences under Sections 420 and 406, IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused-petitioner was arrested on 8-3-2006 during the course of investigation for the offence under Sections 420 and 406, IPC. On 8-6-2006 the petitioner moved an application under Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi for bail and the same was allowed by...
Prafool Chand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3357
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Prafool Chand, Kaushalya Devi and Rakesh, the appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Kota, who vide judgment dated January 30, 2002 convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 304B IPC:Each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.Under Section 498A IPC:Each to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default fifteen days simple imprisonment.Under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act:Each to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/- in default seven days simple imprisonment.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The informant Purshottam Khandelwal (Pw.8) submitted a written report at Police Station Vigyan Nagar Kota on January 21, 1992 with the averments that his daughter Sangeeta (since deceased) was married to appellant Rakesh on November 27, 1991. He alleged that his daughter was harassed for insufficient dowry. One of his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »