Rajasthan Court September 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.
Laxmi Lal Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj827
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated March 13, 1997 of the learned Single Judge whereby the prayer of the appellant seeking quashing of the orders of Commissioner Excise Department (Disciplinary Authority) dated June 7, 1991 and Deputy Secretary Department of Finance (Appellate Authority) dated August 20, 1993 was declined and directions issued vide those orders in regard to removal of appellant from the services were affirmed.2. Contextual facts depict that charge sheet was issued to the appellant vide memo dated October 18, 1986 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules,1958 and inquiry was initiated against the appellant on the following charge:;g fd vki Jh y{ehyky datj] izgjkf/kdkjh ds in ij vkcdkjh fujks/kd ny] nwnw t;iqj esa dk;Zjr Fks] ml vof/k esa fnukad 7-6-86 dks vki vius vtesj fuoklh fe= o vkcdkjh foHkkx ds LVki dks dkj esa lkFk ysdj xzke iMklksyh vtesj jksM= Fkkuk nwnw uVfu;ksa ds Msjks esa tg...
Navneet Kumar Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1118
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The appellant decree-holder Navneet Kumar has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 29.3.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the respondent (objector) No. 1 Mahesh Chandra Gupta. The aforesaid Mahesh Chand Gupta challenged the order dated 4.8.2003 passed by the Executing Court, namely Additional District Judge, (Senior Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Execution Application filed by the appellant herein. By that order, the learned Executing Court rejected the application filed by the respondent No. 1 filed under Order 21 Rule 97. That application was filed by the respondent No. 1 in the proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant seeking execution of the judgment and decree dated 29.1.2005 passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit for eviction as well as recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 36,000/- and with a further direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month as mense profit till recovery of the possessio...
Mandir Shri Ramchandraji Sthan Deogarh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN355
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 05.01.1978 in relation to land belonging to temple Shri Ramchandraji of village Deogarh having khasras Nos. 669, 670, 671, 672, 673 and 674 on the ground that though the notification was issued on 18.05.1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, but the notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) was issued on 07.11.1987 after about 9 years from the date of notification under Section 4. Further no award has yet been passed by the land acquisition officer and, therefore, all the proceedings initiated by issuing notification under Section 4 dt. 18.05.1978 has lapsed.3. The litigation has chequered history in view of the fact that this writ petition has been filed in the name of temple Shri Ramchandraji through its manager Madanmohan S/o Chimanlal...
Deepak and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj739
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated March 19, 2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Ajmer whereby the appellants, five in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:Appellant Deepak:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 7000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.Under Section 307 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 323 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 4/25 Arms Act:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Appellants Asha, Vimla, Sushila and Jyoti:Under Section 323/34 IPC:Instead of awarding punishment at once granted benefit of probation ...
Satendra Vs. Ramjilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ945
ORDERG.S. Sarraf, J.1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-3-2003 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Kishangarhbas, district Alwar whereby the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were discharged from the offences under Sections 304, 201 IPC, but a charge under Section 304-A, IPC was ordered to be framed against the respondent No. 1 Ramji Lal and the case was transferred to trial to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Kishangarhbas, Alwar under Section 228, Cr. P.C.2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner lodged a written report at the police station Mundawar district Alwar on 29-8-2002 that his father Sultan Singh went to the well on 28-2-2002 and when he was sleeping there he died out of electric shock and that the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 threw the body of Sultan Singh near the road. According to the post-mortem report of the deceased Sultan Singh the cau...
Lala @ Ashok Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj829
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated July 26, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 452 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one month.Under Section 324 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one month.Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. As per the prosecution case on October 31, 1997 around 1.30 PM while Babu Lai (Pw. l) was sitting at tea-shop, Lala @ Ashok (appellant) carne to him and asked him to consume liquor, when Babu Lai did not agree, Lala hurled abuses and went to his house. After about 45 minutes Lala, Pushkar, Veera, N...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ganpati Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2108; RLW2008(2)Raj1179
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. Since both these cases i.e. appeal filed by the State against acquittal of the respondents Ganpat Lal and Hiralal for the offence under Section 406 IPC and revision petition regarding disposal of the case property filed by the complainant Gunwant Lal, arise out of the judgment & order dated 7.8.1978 passed separately by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 153/1977 and Criminal Revision No. 72/1977 and are related to the same F.I.R. dated 9.12.1965 (Ex.P.2) filed by the complainant Gunwant Lal before the Superintendent of Police, District Chittorgarh, therefore, both are being disposed-of by this common judgment.2. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that an ancestral Haveli situated at Chhoti Sadri, District Chittorgarh, was raided and searched by the Department of Central Excise & Customs (sometime in July & August, 1965), which resulted in the recovery of huge quantity of gold bars about 232 kg. & silver bars about 7425 kg. alongwi...
Arseeda Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1343
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The complainant petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against that part of the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Bharatpur in sessions case No. 1/2006 whereby his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.2. The short controversy involved in this revision petition is that whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. splely on the ground that the application has not been filed by the public prosecutor and, therefore, it is not maintainable.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned public prosecutor and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.4. On a careful reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C. it becomes clear that the trial Court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if ...
Ghanshyam Das Choudhary Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1092
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Having lost one of his legs, having been granted a compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur ('the Tribunal', for short), vide award dated 10.2.1997, the appellant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, has filed a cross-objection against the award dated 10.2.97. Since the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the same impugned award, both the appeal and the cross-objection are being decided by this common judgment.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.95 the appellant, Ghanshyam Das Choudhary, was riding his scooter in the evening at 5.30 P.M. on National Highway No. 11. While he was riding his scooter, a truck, bearing Registration No. HP 33/2358, being driven rashly and negligently came and hit the scooter from the front side. Consequently, the appellant's right leg had to be amputated and he also sustained fracture in his right hand. ...
Megh Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj804
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Kadi (Pw. 9), who earlier married to Ratan (appellant) as per the customs prevailing in Gurjar community, subsequently contracted bigamous marriage (Nata marriage) with Ghoodiya (Pw. 2), who kept her in his house as his wife without making payment of 'Jhagda' (Money required to be paid to first husband by second husband in lieu of Nata marriage). Since ceremonies necessary for Nata marriage were not performed and Ghoodiya and Kadi started residing as husband and wife, the first husband called meeting of Caste Panchayat, that too could not resolve the matter. Thereafter first husband along with other persons took law in their own hands. On the fateful night they entered the house of second husband and opened fire in making attempt to take away Kadi with them. Kannu, brother of second husband, received fire arm injuries and died on the spot. The appellants, eight in number, were indicted before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gangapur City, who vide...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »