Rajasthan Court February 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.
S.N. Kapoor Exports and ors. Vs. Saraswati Exports and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj3782
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. Brief facts giving rise to the present controversy may be stated thus; Mr. Mahipal Singh, Additional S.P. CID (C.B.) Rajasthan, Jaipur by his letter dated 4.5.2007 made a prayer before this Court for getting the cheques Nos. 332722, 332723 and 332724 dated 7.8.2003 as the cheques were required in connection with the investigation of FIR No. 168/2004 pending investigation at the Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur. The prayer was considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 1.10.2007 and the following order was passed:Copy of letter of the investigating Officer which was sent to this Court dated 4th May, 2007 be supplied to learned Public Prosecutor who may seek instructions from the Investigating Officer in the matter and make submissions on the next date.List on 25th October, 2007.2. Pursuant to the above order learned Public Prosecutor has filed an application on 21.11.2007 praying therein that the aforementioned three cheques be made available to the investig...
Bhanwar Singh Vs. Bhagwati Lal Bhandari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN193
Govind Mathur, J.1. To get the ex-parte decree set aside, the defendant preferred a petition under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court by its order dt. 04.12.2006 accepted the petition and set aside the ex-parte decree dt. 02.09.2006 subject to the condition that the defendant shall furnish bank guarantee upto 03.01.2007 for the decreetal amount i.e. of Rs. 84,320/-.2. The appellant defendant is aggrieved with the order aforesaid to the extent it imposes condition for furnishing bank guarantee.3. To challenge the term settled for setting aside the ex-parte decree the two limbs of the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant are:(1) no term could have been settled by the Court while accepting an application preferred under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure; and(2) even if the Court was possessing power to impose any terms while setting aside ex-parte decree, then too the terms imposed should be reasonable, whereas in the present case that is quite oner...
Balveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN589
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Issue notice for final disposal. Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor is directed to accept notice for the respondent State. He accepts the notice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has supplied the copy of criminal misc. petition to Public Prosecutor.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage.3. By the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged order dt. 07.01.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Raisinghnagar, district Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 316/2007 arising out of FIR No. 146/2007 Police Station, Raisinghnagar, for the offence under Sections 41,42 of the Forest Act whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking to release the wood seized.4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.5. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petit...
Mukesh Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1726
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated October 10, 2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Kishangarh Bas (Alwar), whereby the appellants, four in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:Mukesh Kumar, Mat Ram, Bhim Singh & Udai Singh:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to further suffer imprisonment for one year.Under Section 147 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer imprisonment for two months.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer imprisonment for four months.Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on July 8, 1995 at 10 AM informant Udai Singh (Pw.5) submitted a written report (Ex.P-10) at Police Station Khairthal District Alwar with the averments that on th...
Dhan Raj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1758
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the District Judge Baran whereby the election petition of the respondent No. 5 has been allowed and the election of the petitioner has been set-aside on the ground that the petitioner having incurred disqualification under Section 19(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 having had more than two child born into his family after the cut-off date i.e. 27.11.1995, was rendered disqualified to contest the election.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned District Judge erred in law in not appreciating that though eldest daughter of petitioner, Nisha, was born to his wife in 1994 before the cut-off date but she had been given in adoption to Birbal on 11.4.1995 and, therefore, birth of two more children thereafter would not make him ineligible to contest the election because number of children born to him after the cut-off date would in any ...
Meethanath Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1864
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. The petitioner Meethanath @ Meethesh Nirmohi has filed this writ petition seeking relief that selection proceedings in pursuance of advertisement No. 5/90-91, conducted by respondent No. 2 Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') may be declared illegal and quashed and consequent appointment orders may be set aside.2. Without prejudice to the above relief, the petitioner has further prayed that appointment of Shri Radhey Shyam Koli, respondent No. 4 who had not qualified the screening test and was wrongly called for appearing before the selection committee for interview may be declared illegal and quashed.3. According to the facts narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition, the Commission invited applications from eligible candidates vide advertisement No. 5/90-91 with a view to selecting suitable candidates for appointment to the posts of Public Relations Officer in the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Inform...
Dhuma Devi Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN243
AJay Rastogi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for applicant as well as the learned Counsel for complainant and Public Prosecutor; and perused the material/record made available for perusal at the time of arguments.2. Challan has been filed for offences under Sections 302/304-B/498A/120/ 120B IPC against present applicant who is mother in-law of deceased (Nisha). From statements of father and relatives of the deceased and so also of those who are neighbours residing nearby residence of her in-laws family, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which have been read over by Public Prosecutor and as per post mortem report, the deceased died because of strangulation and in the site plan shown to this Court, height of the ceiling in the room (place) where deceased was lying at relevant time, was only 5ft.3. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court does not find justification for grant of post-arrest bail under Sect...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhanwarlal Murwatiya and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)489
ORDER1. All these nine appeals, arise out of the same judgment of the learned Tribunal dt. 13th Jan., 2004, passed with reference to different assessees, and for different assessment years. However, they have all been admitted, by framing common questions of law as under:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in dismissing the appeal of the Department and upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the (AC) on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land by the assessee?2. Whether the learned Tribunal has erred in law in reversing the finding recorded by the learned AO that in the transaction of land in question, the sale consideration received was a sum of Rs. 61,00,000, as against Rs. 9,00,000 on the basis of admission of the seller corroborated by independent witnesses and material on record?3. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to record and perver...
B.B. Mohanti Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3716; RLW2008(2)Raj1730
ORDERJitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 4/12/2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 23/2007 whereby the revision was accepted and the order dated 22/5/2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 10, Jaipur City, Jaipur was quashed and set aside and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to register the case against the accused petitioner B.B. Mohanti for the offences under Sections 420 & 506 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition are that the complainant-non-petitioner Narayan Padi filed a complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 10, Jaipur City, Jaipur stating therein that he and B.B. Mohanti are the residents of Orissa; his employer Sh. S.S. Sharma who was also known to Sh. B.B. Mohant...
Aziz Nabi Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1932
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to give benefit of pension to him with interest and any other relief or direction which this Court may think just and proper, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, same may also be given in his favour.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board (Hereinafter to be referred in short 'the Board'), a department of Agriculture, which was renamed as Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred in short 'the Corporation .3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was initially appointed on. work charged basis in the Agriculture Department on 9.1.65 from there he was shifted one to another department and after having converted the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board to Rajasthan Agro Industries Corporation, the services of the petitioner remained sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »