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.
Prahlad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj777
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Prahlad, complainant, against the order dated Sept. 15, 2004 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Sikar in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2004 whereby trial Court rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against Pannalal @ Panna Ram, Kajodi and Santosh.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on the basis of the written report dated March 10, 2004 of the petitioner FIR No. 27 of 2004 was registered with Police Station Losal for commission of offences publishable under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowery Prohibition Act against accused persons Panna Ram, wife of Panna Ram, Raju @ Raj Kumar and daughter of Panna Ram. It was alleged in the FIR that the accused named in the FIR have harassed and thereby caused dowery death of bride Sunita. After registering aforesaid report, the police started investigation into the matter and statements of ...
Dhuji Ram and 13 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1614
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Tara Chand Jain, aged 68 years, was brutally attacked at 6.30 AM on August 4, 1998 while he came out of the house of one Bane Singh Jat and was passing in front of Panchayat Bhawan. As many as 28 persons were named as assailants in the written report handed over by informant Rakesh Kumar Jain at Police Station Hindaun. Eighteen accused were nabbed and put to trial in Sessions Case No. 72/1999. Four accused viz. Devi Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Maharaj Singh and Ramdev were acquitted and remaining fourteen were convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge Hindaun City vide judgment dated March 27, 2001 as under:Appellant Mahesh Under Section 302 and other appellants Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple impriso...
Rampal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1905
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. A married woman of thirty years (Maya) was throttled to death. This was the graveman of charge put against the appellant Rampal. Learned Special Judge SC/ST (PA cases) Alwar, vide judgment dated March 26, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Under Section 376 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for six months.Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for six months.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.This appeal has been filed by the appellant in challenge of the said judgment.2. We shall state the facts of the case as put forth by the prosecution:Maya was a married woman. Since she could not adjust herself in her in-laws house, she came back to her parental house and started residing there. On March 11, 2002 around 11.30 AM she had gone to jungle to collect wood-sticks...
Harminder Kaur (Smt.) Vs. Dr. Yogendra Taneja
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN179
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner, wife of the respondent, has filed this petition for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the District Judge, Rajsamand to the Court at Suratgarh.3. The petitioner's contention is that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 01.03.2006 only at Suratgarh and both the parties are permanent residents of Suratgarh. The petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C by submitting petition at Suratgarh. She has also filed a petition under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which is also pending at Suratgarh. She has also filed one case under Section 498A IPC which is pending at Suratgarh. However, the respondent, who is by profession doctor, is presently posted at Amet, which is about 600 kms. from Suratgarh, has filed the petition under Section 9 at Amet. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a ...
Harvindra Singh Vs. the P.O., Rent Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN97
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the trial Court, the petitioner/defendant submitted an affidavit in support of the written statement and when the case was fixed for evidence, the petitioner submitted another affidavit which is in the form of evidence by affidavit. Said affidavit was taken off the record by the trial Court vide order dt. 09.11.2006 on the ground that the petitioner's earlier filed affidavit on 14.11.2005 will be read and subsequently filed affidavit will not be read.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order is without any reason. However, the petitioner had right to submit evidence in the form of affidavit after filing written statement which is required to be supported by affidavit. 4. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the order dt. 09.11.2006 has been passed without assigning any reason and further, the petitioner had right to file affidavit in evidence even...
Goma Singh Vs. Addl. District Judge and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN155
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Service of the respondent No. 2 is complete as learned Counsel Mr. H.K. Jain appears for the respondent No. 2.2. Service of the respondent No. 1 is dispensed with.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Since the petitioner disclosed before the trial Court that the witness has not come to the Court because of the death of petitioner's brother-inlaw and, therefore, taking a lenient view, the petitioner is given one more opportunity to produce evidence but on payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- which shall be paid or deposited before the trial Court on the next date of hearing or by 28.01.2008.5. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the order dt. 24.07.2006 is set aside. The petitioner shall produce his witnesses on the date which may be fixed by the trial Court and may complete his evidence in three occasions and the trial Court may decide the suit expeditiously thereafter....
Gopal Ram Gumani Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN234
Manak Mohta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties in respect of application filed under Section 11 read with Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') for appointment of Arbitrator.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the applicant is partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with the Registrar of Firms, Rajasthan, Jaipur and is engaged in the work of contractorship. The applicant was awarded work contract valuing Rs. 2,73,340.07 for 'Canal Lining Work RD 121-122 Kms for Jodhpur Lift Canal Package No. CLC-02' vide agreement No. 10/1990-91 having arbitration Clause 23 in it, wherein it has been provided that in case any sort of dispute arises in respect of said agreement, the matter will be referred to Arbitrator.3. It is further stated that as per the work-order, the work was to commence from 08.11.1989 and was to be completed by 08.03.1990. The applicant completed the contract-work b...
Dr. Sahib Ram Giri Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: [2008]301ITR294(Raj)
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the reassess- 1 ment proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the assessment year 1994-95, vide notice dated May 31, 2000 (annexure 2), issued by the Assessing Officer in exercise of the power conferred by Sections 147,148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act of 1961' hereinafter).2. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that on April 2, 1996, the petitioner- 2 assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 declaring income of Rs. 46,530. It appears that certain tax evasion petitions were received against the petitioner-assessee, therefore, enquiries were got conducted by the Assessing Officer and on the basis of the information gathered during the enquiries, for the reasons recorded in writing, the Assessing Officer, after seeking approval of a competent authority, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act of 1961 against the petitioner-assessee, by issuing notice und...
Panna Lal Sharma Vs. Rameshwar Lal Choudhary and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: III(2008)BC134
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. In this appeal an application has been filed with the prayer that the applicants Smt. Kamla Devi (wife of the deceased complainant) and Om Prakash (son of the deceased complainant) may be substituted in place of the deceased complainant-appellant Panna Lal and they may be allowed to prosecute this leave to appeal.2. The facts giving rise to the present controversy may be summarized thus. The complainant Panna Lal filed a complaint against the respondent Rameshwar Lal under Section 133 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By judgment dated 26.7.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in case No. 201/99 the accused respondent Rameshwar Lal was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.3. Aggrieved by this judgment the complainant Panna Lal filed Special Leave to Appeal. During the pendency of this special leave to appeal the complainant Panna Lal died and thereafter the applicants Sm...
Gopal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3272; RLW2008(3)Raj2058
Shiv Kumar Sharma and Mahesh Chandra Sharma, JJ.1. Flood of troubles entered the house of Ram Dayal in the odd hours of night of February 10, 2002 while he was sleeping with his family members. Dacoits with mask on, broke open the gate, killed Ram Dayal, gave beating to women and snatched their ornaments. As many as nine accused including appellant Gopal Singh were nabbed for the said dacoity and put to trial before learned Sessions Judge Karauli. Learned Judge vide judgment dated July 14, 2006 while acquitting co-accused persons, convicted and sentenced appellant Gopal Singh as under:Under Section 396 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 7000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Under Section 458 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Under Section 459 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »