Rajasthan Court May 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.
H.P. Kuchchal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3043
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the first information report No. 16/90 dated 24.3.1990; the entire proceedings pending before the Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jaipur (4/1994) and for awarding compensation to the applicant.2. The applicant came in service as an engineer in Public Works Department on 8.5.1954 and continued upto 30.4.1992. On having come to know through reliable sources that the applicant had earned properties dis-proportionate to his income during the period from 8.5.1955 to 1982, that the Director General Anti Corruption had lodged a report (16/90). The primary allegation in the report was that the petitioner had properties for excessive amount of Rs. 1892781/-. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to Additional Superintendent of Police. On concluding of the investigation and after collecting the evidence, challan came to be filed on 5.4.1994 for the offence un...
Dr. S. Mohan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4382
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12-2-2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Dausa, District Dausa whereby he committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the order dated 7-11-2007 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bandikui whereby, charges against petitioner No. 1 for offence Under Section 17B read with Section 27A and petitioner No. 2 for offence under Sections 18A, 18B read with Sections 28 and 28A and 17B read with Section 27A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short the 'Act'), have been framed.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that Section 32(2) of the Act provides that no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or of a Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, shall try an offence punishable under this Act. It is only Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class who has the jurisdiction to try the offence and ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Guru Pal Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3419
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred an appeal No. 265/2002 against the judgment dated 25.11.2000 passed by learned Addh Chief Judicial Magistrate Special Judge, Communal Riots Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 673/2000 (1698/1991) by which the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 323, 451 IPC.2. In this case a S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 52/2001 was also filed by the complainant-Prabhu Lal against the order of the aforesaid Judgment.3. Hence, the criminal appeal No. 265/2002 and criminal revision petition No. 52/2001 are arising out from the common order and decided by this Court by a common judgment.4. Brief facts of the case are that on 7.3.1991 at about 11 A.M. Prabhu Lal PW-2 lodged an First Information Report at police station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur for an incident which had taken place on 7.3.1991 at about 6 A.M. It was stated that on the said date he was at House No. B-515, Malviya Nagar belonging...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3424
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.4.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 434/1993 (94/1983) by which the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 50 of PFA Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that Food Inspector Ramgopal Sharma PW.1 on 13.9.1983 at about 10.30 at Shahpura checked a accused-respondent who was on cycle with drum of milk due to adulteration in milk and he found adulterated milk. He prepared form. No. 6 for sample of milk and purchased 660 ml. Milk and received a slip and filled the milk in three blank bottle in equal quantity and poured 18 drops of farming and sealed intact and sent it to public analyst. A fared checking prepared at the site, when the milk was found to be adulterated it sent to the office of CMHO Jaipur for prosecution where challan was filed, whe...
Manager, Branch Office Sahara India Vs. the Judge, Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN457
H.R. Panwar, J.1. The matter comes up for orders on an application being I.A. No. 8461/07 filed by the respondent workman under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of the ex-parte stay order.2. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that the writ petition itself may finally be heard at this stage. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally heard.3. By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order Annex.1 dated 6.12.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Udaipur (for short 'the Labour Court' hereinafter) holding therein that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner management was unfair and declared the domestic enquiry as unfair. However, the petitioner management was permitted to produce the evidence to establish the charges levelled against the respondent workman.4. I have heard learned Counsel for the ...
Jeewan Prakash Vs. Smt. Hemlata Kumawat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN285
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The appellant-applicant husband of the respondentnon- applicant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dt. 16.02.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 80/2002 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial Court dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide impugned order. Hence this appeal.2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent took place on 06.07.1988. They have two daughters who were of the age of 12 years and 6 years when the present petition under Section 9 of of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on 15.02.2002. The appellant and respondent were living in the city of Udaipur but according to the appellant, the respondent left the appellant on 03.07.1992 and went to the town Chittorgarh where her parents were living. The respondent also took their daughter Miss Maya along with her. Inspite of several efforts, ...
Virendra Kumar Mansigka Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2967
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case a private complaint was lodged on 20th June, 1998. He further submits, by relying upon the number of documents which he has filed on record other than charge-sheet, that taking into consideration the case of the complainant as a whole, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. He has submitted that the Mangiska Oil Products Ltd., Bundi, of which the petitioner is the Managing Director is an oil Company and the complainant had supplied mustard to since 1997, and continued during the period from 1st April, 1998 to 20th April, 1998. The total goods supplied was worth Rs. 79,00,000/-approximately.3. He has placed reliance on the documents filed on record, particularly the statement of accounts to show that regular transactions were carried on between the parties and up to month of May, 1998 an amoun...
Suman Kumar Khatri Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3267
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 19.4.1999 (Annexure- 4) and further prayed for directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner as regular Time keeper in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1680/- and revise his pay-scale and to pay arrears.2. According to the facts of the case, the petitioner's father late Nand Lal Khatri was working on the post of Carpenter in the Office of Public Works Department, Bikaner. He died while in service. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for providing appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975. When the application of the petitioner was not considered for providing appointment on compassionate ground, then the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4296/1989 which was decided vide order dated 13.12.1989 and it was specifically ordered...
Kamal Dubey Vs. Rajendra Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2625
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Defendant No. 1-tenant has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the impugned orders dated 5th June, 2004 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer and dated 21st March, 2005 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (Annexures 1 and 2). The Rent Tribunal passed a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in respect of the rented shop on the ground of personal bona-fide necessity and the Appellate Tribunal maintained the same.3. The plaintiff-landlord Rajendra Prasad, respondent No. 1 herein, filed an application under Sections 9 and 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rent Control Act') for grant of decree of eviction in respect of rented shop on the ground of personal bona-fide necessity as well as subletting of the rented shop by the defendants No. 1 and 2 to the respondents No. 3 and 4, and for revision of the ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jaipur Development Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2657
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard.2. Janardan Vyas, Member, Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority Jaipur forwarded a letter dated September 13, 2007 for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Jaipur Development Authority and its officers. In the letter, it was stated that order dated March 3, 2005 passed by the Tribunal was deliberately defied by the JDA and its officers. On that letter instant Criminal Contempt Petition was. registered and alleged contemnors were directed to appear in person today.3. Pursuant to the directions R.N. Meena, Secretary JDA,. Lalit K. Panwar and Jagdish Chandra (Ex. JDO appear in person.4. Learned Counsel for the alleged contemnors placed for our perusal for our perusal a copy of the order dated March 10, 2008 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2125/2008 whereby the directions issued by the Tribunal vide order dated March 3, 2005 were stayed. In view of the stay order passed by the High Court contempt proceedings cannot proceed now and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »