Rajasthan Court August 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.
Lakhan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4758
Guman Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-10-2003, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Alwar, whereby the accused appellants Ami Lai, Lakhan and Kala Ram alias Kaluram have been convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302. IPCLife Imprisonment each with fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine to under go one year additional rigorous imprisonment each.Under Section 341. IPCOne month's simple imprisonment each.Under Section 3/25 Arms ActAppellant Kalaram alias Kaluram has also been convicted and sentenced three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to under go six months additional rigorous imprisonment.All the sentence were ordered to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution case, a written report (Ex. P. 17) was lodged by informant Bhagwan Sahai son of Pratap Gujar resident of Dhani^ D...
Uganti Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3445
P.S. Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the definition of 'Dependent' as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointments of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 ('Dependent Rules of 1996' for short) and has further claimed the appointment on compassionate ground after the death of her father.2. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that being a married daughter she is not covered by definition of 'dependent' of the deceased government employee and the definition of 'dependent' as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Dependent Rules of 1996 which cover unmarried/widowed daughter is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was living separately with her father during his life time as she has separated herself from her husband. Since he petitioner belongs to S.T. Category, therefore, there is no need to take decree o...
Manju Devi (Smt.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj603
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Husband of the petitioners was enrolled as Nayak in the Indian Army on 15.11.1983. Unfortunately, husband of the petitioner died on 9.11.2000 while he was on duty at 3 EME Center, Bhopal. Though cause of death has been reported to be cardiac failure due to coronary artery occlusion and its complications, however, special family pension has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that death was not attributable to Army Services. Claim of the petitioner was rejected by the authorities vide order dated 8.8.2001. However, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 1.1.2002 itself within the limitation as informed by the authorities. Having failed to get any response from the authorities, the present writ petition has been filed on 11.12.2002 challening the order of rejection of claim of special family pension.2. A hyper technical objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents that during pendency of the appeal, present writ petition could not have been filed by th...
Someshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1446
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J1. This appeal is preferred by accused Someshwar against the judgment of the Court of Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Sessions Case No. 8/2001. Smt. Kamtu lodged a First Information Report on 2.12.2000 at 9.00 p.m. In Police Station, Bichhiwara. It was orally stated that she has three sons and three daughters, out of which accused Someshwar is elder son. Deceased Radhelal was a Postman. Accused Someshwar used to quarrel with deceased Radhelal demanding his salary. Someshwar had beaten his father Radhelal on earlier occasions also, but the matter was not reported to the police on account of relation of son and father. On 1.12.2000, her husband was returning back after distribution of posts at about 10-11 P.M. At that time, she along with daughter Sharda were waiting for him. Someshwar hit Radhelal with the stick, causing death. The incident was first informed to Kushal and, thereafter, reported to the Police. The FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 341 of IP...
Raghukul Vikas Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN506
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner being the society through its Secretary preferred this writ petition to challenge the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dt. 24.07.1989 and for quashing of the notices issued under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956) issued by the Tehsildar, Barmer in pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 24.07.1989 by which the Tehsildar, Barmer demanded possession of the property in dispute from the members of the petitioner society back.3. Brief facts of the case are that one Kesrimal claimed that he is owner of the property by virtue of the Patta in his favour by the erstwhile Jagirdar of the Barmer. The land is 1000 Hattha x 1000 Hattha (corresponding to 10834' x 10834'). The neighbourhood of the property is mentioned in the Patta, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annex.20. The said Kesrimal found that in the revenue rec...
Maharao Brijraj Singh Vs. Smt. Sarawati Devi Sharma @ Poddarni and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3526
R.M. Lodha and R.S. Chauhan, JJ.1. This special appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.In the suit for specific performance of the contract filed by the present respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondents No. 2 to 5, initially an application for rejection of plaint was filed by the present appellant. The said application came to be rejected on August 11, 2006. A day earlier i.e. on August 10, 2006 the present respondent No. 6 was impleaded as party-defendant. He then made an application for rejection of plaint. The said application was granted by the trial court on March 1, 2007 and, thus, plaint came to be rejected.2. The present respondent No. 1 original plaintiff preferred first appeal (the order of rejection of plaint being deemed decree) before this Court which was registered as SB Civil First Appeal No. 181/2007. On April 2, 2007, the Single Judge allowed the first appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court dated March 1, 2007 and restored the civil s...
Rampuri (Shri) and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj226
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The factual matrix leading to the filing of this appeal gives an-account of a horrid episode wherein a husband doused his wife with kerosene and set her ablaze. In the instant appeal the husband and mother-in-law of deceased wife have called in question the judgment dated July 31, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. It is the prosecution case that on May 14, 2001 Rukma, who was admitted to SK Hospital Sikar, gave Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-28) wherein she stated that she was married to Shri Ram Puri some five years back. Her husband and in-laws used to harass her in connection with demand of dowry. In the morning of the said day her husband poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Her mother-in-law assisted her husband, in committing the cruel act. On that parcha bayan a case was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of Rukma also recorded by a M...
Shabbir and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj594
Guman Singh, J.1. In these two appeals, appellants have challenged the judgment dated April 2, 2003 of the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli, whereby appellants Shabbir and Saheed @ Saeeyo @ Tonta were convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302/34 IPC,to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 392 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 460 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution case, informant Gulab Singh Rajput R/o Indra Colony, Karauli lodged a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Karauli on Jan 23, 2001 at 3.35 AM whereby he informed that on the intervening night of 22 and 23 of January...
Mahaveer and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3444
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The petitioners, who are admittedly juveniles, were arrested in a case under Sections 323, 342, and 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Baran by order dated 3.7.2007. The appeal filed on their behalf was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Baran by order dated 13.7.2007 considering the gravity of the offences. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this criminal revision petition under Section 53 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'):2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned public prosecutor.3. Section 12(1) of the Act runs as under:When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithst...
Khandelia Oil and General Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST584(Raj)
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner-company is challenging the show cause notice dated May 31, 2005 for assessment year 2001-02 (annexure 8) as well as the show cause notice dated June 7, 2005 for assessment year 2000-01 (annexure 9) issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Sriganganagar under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 on the premise that the petitioner-company has availed the benefit of exemption from tax to the extent of 75 per cent whereas the petitioner-company was eligible for exemption from tax to the extent of 60 per cent only.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner-company was granted exemption certificate by the competent authority which he has placed on record as annexure 2 in which it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner-company shall be eligible for exemption from tax liability to the extent of 75 per cent on total fixed capital investment. Therefore, once...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »