Rajasthan Court September 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.
Gopal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1072
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The accused petitioners have filed instant revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 21.8.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 33/2007 by which bail granted to the accused petitioners was rejected.2. In short, the facts of the case are that on 14.5.2007 a team was constituted by the Officers of C.B.N, and during checking they stopped one maruti van and they found that upon the seat of Maruti Van three persons were sitting. Upon search they found 2.487 gm opium. Thereafter, a case under Sections 8/18(b), 8/25 and 8/29, N.D.P.S. Act was registered against the petitioners.3. The petitioners moved bail application before the trial Court on 14.7.2008 stating therein that earlier bail applications have been rejected by the trial Court as well as by this Court but looking to the recent verdict of this Court, bail application was allowed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases...
Raj Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2344
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Since both these revision petitioners are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror (Alwar). hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment.2. These two revision petitions have been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 397 readwith Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20.4.2006 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror (Alwar) in Criminal Appeal No. 40/2005 (4/1998) by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and upheld the judgment and order dated 29.1.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror District Alwar in Criminal Case No. 229/1997 by which he has convicted and sentenced the accused petitioners for offence under Section 394 IPC to 7 years R.I. Each with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine 6 months additional R.I. Each.3...
Prena Gupta Vs. the Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3655
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to make available all the information to the petitioner as mentioned in the application (An-nex.4) at the earliest.(ii) the respondents may further be directed to make available her answer-sheets to the petitioner for inspection.3. With regard to prayer No. 1, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that the application filed by the petitioner to make available all the information to the petitioner as mentioned in application Annexure-4 has already been decided vide order dated 25.7.2008.4. With regard to second prayer, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner in this regard is that the respondents may be directed to make available her answer-sheets for inspection.5. Learned Counsel for the respondents while inviting attention of this Court towards the statutory provisions submits that as p...
Bhana Ram Vs. Rajasthan Agricultural University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj506; 2009(1)WLN42
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to provide all terminal benefits to the petitioner including pension, gratuity, etc. after granting revision of pay scale revised from time to time with all consequential benefits forthwith alongwith simple interest at the rate of 12% upon retiral benefits.2. Learned Counsel for the respondents, at the initial stage, raised serious preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on account of the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur. Therefore, 1 deem it just and proper to first decide the preliminary objection raised by learned Counsel for the respondents with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur.3. The contention has been raised by learned Counsel for the respondents that although the petitioner was employee of the University but, till his retirement from service...
Ram Prakash Agarwal Through L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Agrawal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj3
ORDERJitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. Since these two appeals being inter-related and involve one and the same core question of pre-emption in regard to the common property, hence both the appeals are taken up together for hearing and decision vide this common judgment.2. To avoid the repetition and have clear glance over the matter, the facts of both the cases are narrated as under:3. S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 440/98 (Civil Suit No. 18/84 (298/95):- The plaintiff-appellant Smt. Pukhraj Devi filed a suit of right to pre-emption and permanent injunction against defendant-respondent No. 1 Smt. Pushpa Agrawal (vendee) and defendant-respondent No. 2 Gopi Chand stating therein that she and defendant-respondent No. 2 Gopi Chand (vendor) are the co-sharers of house No. 4310, situated at Rasta Kundigaron Bherunji, Ghatgate, Jaipur and they were in possession of their respective shares in the said house but defendant-respondent No. 2 Gopi Chand (vendor) sold out his share (description of which was gi...
Fateh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj256
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the amount of all the retiral benefits of pension, gratuity, commutation, State Insurance and G.P.F. Etc. for the entire period of service from 02.02.1970 to 30.11.2004 without any deduction and objection, calculated immediately on his retirement on 30.11.2004 on the basis of the last pay drawn. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay withheld amount towards gratuity and the amount of commutation etc. with arrears arising out of retiral benefits and interest @ 12% on the benefits from the date they became payable till the date of actual payment.2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed on 02.02.1970 as Police Constable in the R.A.C., 6th Battalion. Later on, after adjudging the suitability of the petitioner for the post of Constable Driver, he was selected and given posting ...
Jeet Ram and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj33
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 12-10-2006 (Annex.3) whereby the Executive Engineer, Gangnahar South Division, Sriganganagar directed stoppage of irrigation water supply on the agricultural land comprised in Murabba Nos. 51 and 23 in Chak-29 RB; and against the order dated 15-11-2006 (Annex.6) whereby the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources, Circle Sriganganagar dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order dated 12-10-2006.2. Put in a nutshell, the relevant aspects of the matter are that the aforesaid agricultural land seems to have been allotted to Baishakha Singh, father of petitioner No. 1; and came to be attached in recovery of the loan amount due to the Punjab National Bank, Raisinghnagar. The Executive Engineer, Ganghahar South Division, Sriganganagar, pursuant to a communication dated 16-7-2006 as received from the Tehsildar (Revenue), Raisinghnagar issued instructions under the impugned...
Shyam Lal Etc. Vs. State of Rajashtan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1803
Prakash Tatia, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by appellants to challenge the judgment of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur delivered in Sessions Case No. 223/01 (62/2000) 46/2000. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 763, 2003 has been preferred by Shyam Lal, whereas D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 709/2005 has been received through jail on behalf of convict-appellant Jetha Ram and D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 347/2003 has been preferred by appellant Gajendra. All these three appellants along with one accused Kewal Chand were charged for offences under Sections 364, 302, 394 and Section 210, IPC. Appellant Shyam Lal and Gajendra have been convicted for offence under Sections 364, 302, 394, and 201, IPC and have been sentenced as under:Jetha Ram, ShyamLal Gajendra:(1) Under Section 302, IPC, life imprisonment fine of Rs. 500/-,in default thereof to undergoone year's R. I.(2) Under Section 394, IPC, 10 years'R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/-, indefault thereof, to undergo sixmonths' R.I.(3)...
Shyam Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1698
Prakash Tatia, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by appellants to challenge the judgment of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur delivered in Sessions Case No. 223/01 (62/2000)46/2000. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 763/2003 has been preferred by Shyam Lal, whereas D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 709/2005 has been received through jail on behalf of convict-appellant Jetha Ram and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 347/12003 has been preferred by appellant Gajendra. All these three appellants along with one accused Kewal Chand were charged for offences under Sectionsf364, 302, 394 and Section 201, IPC. Appellant Shyam Lai and Gajendra have been convicted for offence under Sections 364, 302, 394 and 201, IPC and have been sentenced as under-JethaRam, (1) Under Section 302, IPC Life and imprisonment fine of Rs. 500/-, inShyam Lal default thereof to undergo one year's R.I.Gajendra:(2) Under Section 394, IPC 10 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.200/-, indefault thereof, to undergo six months' R.I.(3)...
Pradeep Kumar Alias Pinku Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ302
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 307 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of eight years with a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month.2. Factual matrix of the case are that one Smt. Ayodhya Bai submitted a written report on 1-12-1982 to the Police Station Kaithooni Police inter alia alleging therein that at about 7.30 PM on that date she along with her sister's daughter Vimla and son Kishan has gone to see the Dusshera Mela. When they reached near Shripura Bus Stand, Pradeep @ Pinku, the present petitioner, Chotya, Afzal and Assu approached them from behind. Chotya, Afzal and Assu caught hold of Kishan and accused appellant Pradeep caused to him injuries by knife which he had carried in his pocket. Kishan received three injuries on his person...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »