Rajasthan Court April 2007 Judgments
Moola Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN553
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dt. 12.04.2001 Annexure-8 passed by the Director and Ex-Officio Dy. Secretary, Government Department of Panchayti Raj, Jaipur.2. According to the facts narrated in the writ petition, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jawla, Tehsil Parabatsar, District Nagaur in the month of Janauary, 1965 and remained as Sarpanch till December, 1997. According to the petitioner, in the meeting of Gram Panchayat which was said to be held on 31.01.1965, certain resolutions were passed unanimousl by the Members of Gram Panchayat. Against which the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 lodged a false complaint against the petitioner on concocted grounds before the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.3. While issuing charge-sheet on 21.02.1978, explanation was sought from the petitioner. The petitioner gave his detailed explanation and reply to the charges leveled against him to the respondent Panchaya...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bhavna Sharma Vs. Devendra Kumar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Raj157; RLW2007(1)Raj270
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the decree dated October 20, 2005 of the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur whereby petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 submitted on the ground of cruelty by respondent-husband was allowed and marital ties between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband were ordered to be snapped.2. Contextual facts depict that marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband took place on February 4, 1990. In fact respondent-husband entered into second marriage with the appellant after seeking divorce from his first wife. Although three children were born out of the wedlock, their married life never remained calm and quiet. As per the averments made in the petition the wife immediately after marriage started quarrelling and abusing on petty matters. On every festival she used to call her parents and brother to quarrel and insult the husband. The wife did not give attention to household works and without seeking permission...
Tag this Judgment!Babloo Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3338
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Confession of guilt put in the mouth of appellant by a witness is the basis of finding of conviction arrived at by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu in the judgment dated June 21, 2002 whereby the appellant was sentenced under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.2. A written report was submitted by informant Prabhati Lal (Pw.1) at Police Station Buhana on December 10 1998 wherein it was stated that dead body of Mehu Ram was lying in a pool of blood in front of house of one Sugna Ram. Informant had suspicion that Babloo might have killed Mehu Ram by sharp edged weapon. On that report case under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC were recorded appellant was arrested necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad Vs. Puran Lal Dry Cle ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)16VST537(Raj)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated September 29, 1997 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal in the revision application filed by the present respondent No. 1 under Section 86(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 set aside the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dated November 5, 1996 and thereby set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,26,843 levied under Section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'Act of 1954').2. On September 23, 1994, a truck was checked at Mahara-Neem-Ka-Thana road. The said truck was found to be carrying a laundry machine. The driver was not having form No. ST-18. Consequently, the goods were seized and on that very day, notice was issued to the driver of the said truck. In response to the notice, respondent No. 1 filed two replies. H...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2088
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 50/2002 (64/2001) (105/2000), therefore, both are being disposed of by this common order.2. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants asunder:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Accused Under Sections--------------------------------------------------------------------------------376 IPC 366 IPC 376 r/w 114 IPC--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dinesh To undergo 5 To undergo 5 Kumar years RI and a years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of in default of payment of fine, payment of fine,to further un- to further un-dergo 1 month's dergo 1 month's additional SI additional SISmt. Saroj To undergo 3years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-;in default ofpayment...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chandra Modi Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Raj183
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. These three petitions have been filed against the common judgment, of the learned Board of Revenue, being D/~ 9-5-95 Annex. 7, accepting the revisions of the State Government, filed under Section 56 of the Stamp Act, 1899, hereafter to he referred to as the Act. Those revisions were filed against the order of the District Collector (Stamp), D/- 9-7-92. Since one property was sold by three separate sale deeds, in separate portions, to three different persons, of different capacity, and therefore, identical question about leviability of the stamp duty arose, and that has been decided by the common order by the learned Board of Revenue, and therefore, all these three petitions are being decided by this common order.2. The facts of the case, as appear on the record are, that one R. Section Kushwaha had obtained 99 years lease of the plot, including a house constructed thereon, from the Urban Improvement Trust, hereafter to be referred to as the UIT, under a registered...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Pahadia Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2703
Guman Singh, J.1. This civil writ petition (habeas corpus) has been filed by petitioner Kamlesh Palladia under Article 226, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order dated 6.7.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Kota as well as the order dated 14/15th of August, 2006 passed by the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petitioner are that the District Magistrate Kota passed the impugned order dated 6.7.06 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') for detention of the petitioner in the interest of maintenance of public order and public safety. The detention order has been challenged on the ground that the District Magistrate, Kota did not supply the sufficient material to the petitioner/detenu to enable to make effective representation to the State of Rajasthan. The material disclosed by the Detaining Authority did not contain sufficient ground to pass the order against the...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3326
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated October 14, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bharatpur Camp Deeg whereby the appellants, nine in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:Appellants Sher Singh and Ajeet Singh:Under Section 302 IPC:Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 147 IPC:Both to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.Under Section 148 IPC:Both to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.Appellant Sujeet:Under Section 302/149 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 307 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Lilani Vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN149
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dt. 30.11.2005 so far as it forfeits the salary of the petitioner other than subsistence allowance and a direction to the respondents to make full payment of salary for the entire period of suspension.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was facing a criminal trial. During the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension. By the judgment and order dt. 10.11.2003, the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur, in Case No. 22/2001, acquitted the petitioner of the charges. After acquittal the petitioner was reinstated. However, with regard to the period of suspension, no decision was taken as the matter was kept pending till completion of the departmental proceedings. In the departmental proceeding, vide order dt. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Mal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2698
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In this appeal, the appellants, six in number, have impugned the judgment dated August 6, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District Jaipur whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:Pooran Mal, Pappu Ram, Dholu @ Ramphool, Dhanna, Bhagirath @ Bhagrata and Rajendra:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 341 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 323/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Under Section 325/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-.In default of payment of fine each to suffer imprisonment for six months.The substantive sente...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »