Rajasthan Court April 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.
Sumer Singh Vs. Shaukat HussaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj107
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. By the impugned award, the claim. petition has been decided through Lok Adalat and the award has been passed for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-.3. At the direction of the Court, learned Counsel made available for perusal of the Court the compromise on the basis of which the award was passed and it shows that it is duly signed by the counsel for the applicant appellant Shri Parasmal Jain, who was the counsel in the trial Court. Under his signature it is mentioned ^^v- v- izk** on this basis, learned Counsel seeks to contend that it is not clear as to whether the compromise is signed by counsel for the claimant, or counsel for the opposite party. The contention is strange, inasmuch as, this only means ^^vfoDrk izk**, and from perusal of the record, it transpires that Parasmal Jain was the counsel for the claimant appellant, whose signatures as appearing on the Vakalatnama, fully tally with the signature on the compromise as the appe...
Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2027
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The appellant Manoj Kumar has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 6.5.2003 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in sessions case No. 148/2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 498A, 304B IPC and he has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of the fine further imprisonment for three months under Section 498A IPC and to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine further imprisonment for six months under Section 304B IPC.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.4,99 one Ramesh Chand Soni lodged a report at the police station Sodala, Jaipur stating therein that his daughter Raj Kumari was married to the petitioner Manoj Kumar in May, 1997. Soon after the marriage her in-laws harassed her in connection with demand of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry. On 6.4.99, the appellant Manoj...
Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2337
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 18.10.84 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota whereby the learned judge has convicted them for offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code ('IPC for short) and has sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and directed them to further undergo a simple imprisonment of six months in default of payment of the fine.2. The brief facts of the case are that statement of Mohan Lal (PW. 1) was recorded on 29.8.79 in the hospital by Bashir Mohammed, Sub-Inspector and were entered into a 'Rojnamacha'. On the same day, on the basis of the 'Rojnamacha', a formal FIR was registered for offence under Sections 452, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants and against to other co-accused persons namely Santosh Kumar and Prithviraj. According to the FIR, the complainant's father, Goverdhan Sahai and his elder brother, Bharat Kumar, were sitting in their shop loca...
Ten Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3176
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 21/7/1993 (Annex. 1), whereby, petitioner was dismissed from service for misconduct alleged to be committed by him to remain absent from duty without sanctioned leave so also petitioner is further challenging the order passed by Appellate Authority dated 25/8/1993 (Annex.3) and order Annex.4 dated 10/4/1995 passed by the Reviewing Authority.2. According to facts of the case, petitioner was substantively appointed on the post of constable in the month of August, 1979. He was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 8/4/1993 in which two charges were levelled against him. which read as follows:1 ;g fd fnukad 8-11-92 le; 7 ih,e ij estj goynkj vkj-ih-,Q- ckalokMk }kjk ykbZu ds gkftj eqyktekuks dk jksydksy eqrkfcd gkftjh jkftLVj ds fy;k x;k rks vki jksy dksy esa gkftj ugha gksuk ik;k tkus ij jks- vke jiV la[;k 433 ij vkidks xSj gkftjh vafdr dh xbZ] vki fn0 12-1-93 dks bl dk;kZy; ls v...
Sohan Lal JaIn and anr. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3475
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 22.8.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 4, North, Kota in criminal case No. 146/2007 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for dropping the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been dismissed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondent.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the trial Court has committed serious error in taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offence under Section 138 of the Act merely on the basis of affidavit and without complying with the provisions contained in Sections 200, 202 Cr.P.C. as according to him before taking cognizance of an offence on complaint the Magistrate is bound to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that u...
Surendra Kaur (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Kuljit Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3562
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur thereby rejecting two claim petitions filed by the appellants herein in regard to death of driver of truck No. RND-9257 Gulzar Singh and khalasi of the said vehicle namely Nirmal Singh @ Nimmo, both of whom died in road accident along with two others which took place on 23.10.1989. It is borne out from the record that Gulzar Singh was driving the vehicle No. RND-9257. While he was coming from Ajmer towards Jaipur, suddenly truck No. DIL-5262 which was coming from Jaipur towards Ajmer and was being driven by respondent No. 1 - Kuljit Singh, collided with the former which resulted into death of aforesaid Gulzar Singh and Nirmal Singh and two others travelling in that truck. In the first information report that was lodged at the instance of khalasi of truck No. DIL-5262, it was alleged that the driver of truck No. RND-9257 was driving the...
Rajesh Kumar Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2002
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 402/2007 lodged by the respondent No. 2 Ramgopal Agarwal at the police station Nayapura, Kota under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 IPC wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of the land described therein on 2.5.1990 in favour of the respondent No. 2 claiming the land to be his own and received Rs. 1,50,000/- as consideration from the respondent No. 2 whereas the land did not belong to him and it actually belonged to one Raju Lal S/o Gajanand Gurjar.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that prior to the agreement dated 2.5.1990, an agreement was executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the wife of the respondent No. 2 in regard to the same land and thus the respondent No. 2 was aware of the status ...
Devaram Vs. Prahlad Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2344
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal is directed against the rejection of the claim petition No. 1340/99 (60/91) filed by the appellant merely on the ground of his non-examination as witness in support of claim.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was minor at the time of accident being only 8 years and he could not contest for himself. There was otherwise sufficient evidence on record in the shape of injury report, FIR and X-ray report. Evidence of all other witnesses of the appellant, some of which were his relatives, was also produced. The learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition was therefore not correct when it stated that the appellant did not examine himself as a witness in support of his claim petition, nor did produce any other documentary evidence. Learned Counsel made reference to earlier part of the award whereby the Tribunal itself noted the fact that the appellant Devaram has produced his injury report. It has therefore been prayed...
Bhikkilal and ors. Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj128
ORDERAshok Parihar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 25-4-1990, passed by the trial Court, by which, suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff appellants has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that a sale deed was executed by Thakur Ghanshyam Singh (now defendant No.2 in the present appeal) in favour of one Mathuresh Chandra (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs) on 3-8-1970. Another deed of re-conveyance was also executed by above Mathuresh Chandra on 4-8-1970 to the extent that In case Thakur Ghanshyam Singh or his nominees make payment of Rs. 50,400/- within five years i.e. before 3-8-1976, above Mathuresh Chandra will have no objection In re-convey of the properties In question In favour of Thakur Ghanshyam Singh or his nominees. It appears that subsequently Thakur Ghanshyam Singh executed a sale deed in regard to part of the property in question on 28-6-1975 in favour of one of the appellants Bhikkil...
inder Singh Bhati Through His Lrs. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2410
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the legal representatives Smt. Chandra Devi and others of Shri Indra Singh Bhati, who was son of Keshav Dev Bhati, whose land in question was acquired by the State Government for Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur under the provisions of Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1961 by the notification under Section 52(1) of the Act dated 3rd June, 1974. The said land in question is situated at right side of Circuit House to Ratanada Road of Jodhpur and the said land was acquired for the purpose of 'Residential-cum Shopping Scheme in between road from Ratanada Crossing to Circuit House and Police Line'.2. The notice to petitioner in this regard under Section 52(2) of the Act vide Annexure 3 dated 28.6.1973 shows that the land of the petitioner measured 3533 sq. yards and is earmarked as plot No. G-1 in the survey plan produced by the petitioner as Annexure 2 with the writ petition. The said land is said to have been purchase...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »