Rajasthan Court January 2008 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.
Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1600
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. P, a female child aged about 4 years was ravished and killed by an unknown person, who was so intelligent that he left all his clothes stained with blood and semen at the place of incident itself. This clueless crime was investigated by an Investigating Officer, who was neither vigilant nor well versed with the techniques of the job to collect the threads of evidence finding out the path which leads to the culprit. It was the culprit himself (appellant herein), who became over smart and himself jumped on to the net of justice. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jaipur District as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-.Under Section 376 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-.Under Section 302/201 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-.In default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six month...
Bhoori Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1566
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated March 16, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bandikui District Dausa. Learned Judge vide judgment dated March 16,2002 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 394 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on August 17, 1996 at 5 PM Kinduri Lal (PW. 1) handed over a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Mahwa stating therein that on the said day Sampati, wife of his elder brother, who had gone to the field for bringing fodder, was done to death. Her both the ankles were chopped of, silver anklets weighting 2 kg were removed and s...
General Manager, Umald Bhawan Palace Hotel Vs. Jabbar Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2602
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 15.11.1995 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur whereby the Labour Court passed award In favour of the workman respondent Jabbar Singh and it is ordered that the workman may be reinstated in service with 50% backwages both the date of the registration of the case i.e. 16.8.1991.3. According to the facts of the case, the respondent workman Jabbar Singh raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer and it is stated by him that initially he was appointed in the petitioner industrial establishment on 4.7.1987 as room- boy and he continued on the said post until 1.7.1989 when his services were terminated by an oral order without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The conciliation officer issued notice to the petitioner and upon failure of the conciliation proceedings the mater was sent to the appropriate...
JaIn Electricals and Contractors Vs. Riico and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1442
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.2005 (Annex. 10) of respondent Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., (A Rajasthan Government Undertaking) ('RIICO' for short), whereby the respondent RIICO forfeited the earnest money/security deposit of Rs. 1,28,000/- given by the petitioner in relation to a contract for laying down of 11 KV LT power line at Special Economic Zone, Boranada, Jodhpur. By the same communication, the respondent RIICO black-listed the petitioner and restrained him from making any further bids for any contract to be awarded by the respondent RIICO.3. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the last date for submitting the bids in question in pursuance of the notice inviting bids dated 24.12.2004 for the aforesaid work was 24.1.2005. For the said work, the petitioner submitted his bid ...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1855
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. This matter was listed yesterday but none present on behalf of the respondents. The respondent assailed the orders dated January 29, 1983 and December 19, 1995 passed by Government of India before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge vide order dated April 24, 1997 allowed the writ petition and demand of dead rent in the sum of Rs. 50,378/- shown in the order dated January 29, 1983 was reduced to Rs. 24,035/- and the appellants were directed to charge the dead rent accordingly and allow the respondent to operate mines for the lease period. It was also directed that if any excess amount was recovered from the respondent that shall be paid to the respondent with interest @ 12% p.a. The said order has been assailed by the appellants in the instant appeal. It appears that original lessee Guljari Lal Gupta had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the revision of dead rent and the said writ pet...
Pappi @ Mehboob and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1608
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Four appellants viz. Pappi @ Mehboob, Lalit Kumar Singh @ Gyani, Hemu @ Hemant and Laxman were the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Kota. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 4, 2002 convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 302 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.Under Section 324/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as under:On January 15, 1998 informant Yunus (PW. 6) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 9) at Police Station Railway Colony Kota to the effect that on the same day around 4 PM while the informant and Guddu @ Shahzad were returning from Meenawala Baba's Dargah they were confronted near the crossing...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Prem Raj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2457
ORDERG.S. Sarraf, J.1. Heard learned P.P. and Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.2. During the course of hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 32/2004 Prem Raj and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, Additional District and Sessions Judge Hindaun City found himself confronted with two questions which he has referred to this Court under Section 395(2), Cr. P.C. The questions referred when translated into English read as under:1. Whether the judgments passed earlier in two out of three appeals filed by different sets of accused against a common judgment passed in a criminal matter on identical charges, holding the charges under Sections 148 and 149, I.P.C. not proved against the accused and, therefore, acquitting them, would be legally binding on the successor in office hearing the pending third appeal for the charges under Sections 148 and 149, I.P.C.?2. Whether, if in the remaining third appeal the Court convicts the accused under Sections 148 and 149, I.P.C. would it not amount to review of the earlier order ...
Govind B. Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN165
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased one agriculture land and got it converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes, namely, in this case for establishing a petrol pump. According to the petitioner, for this, he applied in accordance with law for conversion of land and before passing the order of conversion, notices were issued to the local body as well as to various State Departments including to Public Works Department. A public notice inviting any objection was also issued before converting the land from agriculture to land for petrol pump use. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained No Objection Certificate (NOC) under Petroleum Rules, 2002 from the District Collector, Pali for establishing the petrol pump under the provisions of Petroleum Rules, 2002 on 24.02.2005. The petitioner thereafter without any reason and basis was served with the order of the District Magistrate dt. 04.05.2005 by which ...
Dinesh Chandra Vs. Addl. District Judge (Ft) No. 2 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN75
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial Court dt. 04.04.2007 by which petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party was dismissed.3. As per the facts of the case, the respondent No. 2 filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents No. 3 to 7. The alleged agreement is dt. 15.03.1997 which was reduced in writing on 27.03.1997. In the said suit, a detailed written statement was submitted by contesting defendant (alleged vendor)-respondent No. 3, who was defendant No. 1 before the trial Court. It appears that in the trial Court, three separate applications were filed-one by son of respondent No. 3-defendant No. 1, second by his grand son and third by the widow of one of the sons of the defendant No. 1. The petitioner in his application pleaded that he is a legal heir of the defendant Maganlal and he has share in the property in dispute. He referred...
Parasram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR66]
P.S. Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.11.2000 whereby the case of the petitioner has been refused by the Government to refer to the labour Court under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short as 'Act of 1947') on the ground that in the earlier case the industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in its order dated 18.4.1991 has held that the domestic enquiry is against the principles of natural, justice and punishment order dated 10.10.1990 is proper and fair.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's services were terminated on 10.10.1990 while serving as painter Gr. I, against which a departmental appeal was filed and same was dismissed. On 18.4.1991, termination order was approved under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. On raising the civil dispute before the Civil Court, the suit was returned under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, a complaint was moved before the conciliat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »