Rajasthan Court July 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.
Rajendra Kumar Sharma Through His Legal Representatives Vs. Rakesh and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj13; RLW2009(1)Raj107
ORDERNarendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Admit.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The plaintiffs - respondents filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in respect of rented property against defendants - petitioners in the trial court. The defendants filed their written statement, wherein they raised number of objections including the objection relating to denial of title of the plaintiffs in respect of disputed property. The trial court framed seven issues. Thereafter both the parties led their evidence on the issues framed in the case and case was fixed for final arguments. The learned Counsel for the defendants raised a preliminary objection in the trial court about maintainability of the present suit in Civil Court in view of specific bar of jurisdiction of civil court as contained in Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995. It was contended that owner of the disputed property is Muslim Wakf Board and not the plaintiffs, therefore, this being a matter relating to wakf p...
Bhagwan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3519
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated May 30, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Kota, whereby the appellants, three in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:Bhagwan:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Om Praksh:Under Section 324 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Ramesh Chand:Under Section 326 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Six co-accused persons, who were put to trial along with the appellants, however were not found guilty and they stood acquitted. The State of Rajasthan did not choose to assail the finding of acquittal and it attained finality.2. A written report was handed over on July 19, 200...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahendra Kr. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj480
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(5) Cr.P.C. challenging the Judgment of acquittal dated 11.2.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur (for short 'the learned trial Court') in case No. 565/1989, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents.2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Murli Manohar Sharma, Food Inspector, submitted a complaint to this effect that on 21.9.1987 he made an inspection of Sanjay Trading Company in presence of accused Mahendra Kumar and he was found to be selling of 'dhania'. He submits that the accused respondent was having license of the same. Upon doubt he purchased 600 gm 'dhania' and put in three bottles in same quantity. After following the due procedure a complaint was filed in the Court under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. After prosecution sanction, complaint was filed against the accused respondents.3. The accused respondents were read over the charge in subs...
Manjulata Shukla (Ku.) Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj985
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 30.12.99 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.2. The petitioner was appointment on the post of Teacher, Government Primary School, Village Unthra, Panchayat Samiti Srinagar, Distt. Ajmer on 29.3.1996. The petitioner joined his duties on 15.5.1996 and then proceeded for summer vacation from 16.5.1996 to 30.6.1996. She reported back on duty on 1.7.1996 and continued to work till 6.7.1996. According to the petitioner, she thereafter became ill and was under the treatment of doctors at Ajmer. Prescriptions of her treatment relating to the year 1996 and 1997 have been placed on record. The respondents issued a notice to the petitioner on 24.8.1996 requiring her to attend the duty positively by 31.8.1996 or else her service would be terminated. The petitioner did not join and thereafter the respondents issued a notice in daily newspaper Dainak Navjyoti on 31.1.1999, giving her last chance to appear o...
Suresh Chand Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2393
Momammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard the learned for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.6.1991 by which he was discharged from service and also additionally prayed that action of respondents in not extending the term of his engagement be declared discriminatory and illegal and any rule which provides for non-extension of term of his engagement for the mere reason of offences which do not fall within the purview of serious misconduct be also declared illegal and unconstitutional.3. The petitioner was initially enrolled in the Army in the regiment of Artillery on 10.4.1976. He sought discharge on his request and he was discharged on 22.7.1980. He was then re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps on 15.6.1981 for a period of ten years. This enrollment was extendable by further five years or till one attains the age of 55 years. The petitioner was discharged from service on completion of term of initial engagement of 10 years.4. Shri R.S. Bhadauria, learned Counsel for ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Jyoti Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Raj)264
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the learned Tribunal dt. 24th Sept., 2004.2. The appeal was admitted vide order dt. 9th March, 2006, by, framing the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case when for asst. yr. 1991-92 the original assessment was made under Section 143(1)(a), could resort to proceedings under Section 147 be termed as based on mere change of opinion.2. Whether the resort to Section 147 could be taken if the AO fails to make resort to regular assessment under Section 143 within the time permitted after assessment was made under Section 143(1)(a).3. The necessary facts are, that the present assessee filed a return on 12th July, 1991, which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 27th Sept., 1991, and a refund of Rs. 515 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently on 26th March, 1997, a notice under Section 148 was issued, as the AO was of the opinion, that there was under-as...
Ramcharan Sharma Vs. the Rent Control Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj184
ORDERNarendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The question involved in the present writ petition is - as to whether the Rent Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 2001') is empowered to issue a certificate in favour of the landlord for recovery of possession of rented premises from the tenant on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties?3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that applicants-landlord Ajay Kumar and Smt. Gulab filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the tenant-petitioner Ramcharan before the Rent Tribunal, Dausa, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the rented shop for applicant Ajay Kumar. It was averred in the application that the rented shop was left out to the defendant in 1996 on monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. The said rented premise is required bonafidely by the applicant Ajay Kumar for start...
Sita Devi (Smt.) Vs. District and Sessions Judge and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3581
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by the widow of employee of respondent who was serving them as Bastawardar, a class of employee. He while serving died in harness on 24/11/1997. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondents on 4/12/1997 claiming appointment for her son on the post of Class-IV employee on compassionate ground. The respondents vide letter dated 16/1/1998 required the petitioner to submit an application on prescribed proforma. Petitioner thereupon submitted the application on prescribed proforma on 26/2/1998 to respondent No. 1 namely-District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. Request of the petitioner for appointment to her son was declined by respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 3/3/1998 informing her that it was not possible to give appointment to her son on compassionate ground however if petitioner herself was willing to get the appointment, she could within three days of the receipt of the s...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Vikram Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj893
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 29th July, 1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur whereby the accused respondent Vikram Singh has been acquitted of the offence under Section 15/18 of the N.D.P.S., Act, 1985.(2). The nub of the prosecution story as unfolded by PW. 1 Gyan Chand is as under:That on 14th January, 1986 PW. 1 Gyan Chand, Constable and PW. 2, Bhagwan Singh, Constable were train Guard on 19 Down Dehradun Express, boarding from Kota to Swai Madhopur. It is alleged that at Indergarh Railway Station, both these train guards boarded to coach which was adjacent or one coach ahead to the coach of Guard. On checking, they found one person going to toilet again and again. His activity caused suspicion in the mind of the train guards. After 15 minutes, when the train reached Swai Madhopur, and the person did not come out of the toilet, it confirmed their suspicion. They tried to get the door of the toilet unlocked -but the accused did ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kismat Singh @ Pappu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj901
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 16th November, 1995 of Special Judge (Satiniwaran) and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the accused-respondent Kismat Singh @ Pappu @ Manmohan Singh has been acquitted in the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The nub of the prosecution story as unfolded by PW.3 Badri Sen is as under:That on 19th March, 1995 at about 7 AM Miss. Raju a minor daughter of the complainant PW.3 Badri Sen, went to the farm house of Man Singh situated at Queens Road, Jaipur to collect butter milk but thereafter she did not return. The complainant searched his daughter here and there but of no avail. During the search of her daughter the complainant having cast doubt on one Kismat Singh @ Pappu @ Manmohan Singh submitted a written report Ex. P/6 in the police station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur stating that Kismat Singh @ Pappu @ Manmohan Singh could have enticed and kidnapped his daughter....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »