Rajasthan Court January 2009 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.
Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2042; RLW2009(1)Raj824
Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.5.2006 by which cognizance was taken against petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 307, 365, 323, 324, 341, 427, 166, 167, 120-B IPC and Section 27, Arms Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Charanjeet Singh, husband of respondent No. 2 filed a complaint and alleged that he along with Kishan Singh was coming on 6.12.2002 in pickup vehicle, they were stopped by petitioner Balraj Singh, S.H.O. along with other police personnels, who were on spot in three vehicles. Petitioner abused him and when he requested the petitioner not to abuse him, petitioner asked other accused-persons to damage complainant's vehicle, other accused-persons damaged the complainant's vehicle and petitioner and Babu Ram be laboured to the complainant and Kishan Singh, and later on, complainant and Kishan Singh sat in their vehicle and started it, then petitioner fired on...
Moolchand Bothra Vs. Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj2906
Narayan Roy, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The writ application filed by the appellant challenging order of the Court below allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, was dismissed after hearing counsel for the parties.3. Mr. Maloo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that in a suit for specific performance of the agreement, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC would not be maintainable and therefore, the Court below and the learned Single Judge of this Court erred in allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Learned Counsel further submitted that since the suit for specific performance was in between the parties, who had agreed to sell the land in question, third person's interference would not be permissible as it would change the scope of the suit for specific performance of a contract. To buttress his argument, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the apex Co...
Fransis Jarj Devid Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3382
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant Fransis Jarj Devid, against the order dated December 12, 2005 of Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Ajmer in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2005 discharging the accused non-petitioner from the charges under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC and quashed the order dated August 25, 2004 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 256 of 1999 by which charges were framed against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner filed a complaint against accused non-petitioner and two other persons stating therein that the degree and marks-sheet on the basis of which the accused non-petitioner entered in service are forged one and obtained from the Varansey Sanskrit University in the year 1989-1990, while the said University was closed in the year 1974. In this regard the c...
Rajesh JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj612
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By filing instant Criminal revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court (Prevention of Sati) Govt. & Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur (for short the trial Court') whereby the application filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been allowed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the present complainant petitioner lodged an FIR No. 19/2009 at P.S. Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur regarding kidnapping of his son.3. During investigation police arrested the accused persons including respondents No. 2 and 3 and filed charge-sheet against 6 accused persons including present accused respondents for the offence under Sections 363, 364A, 343, 120, 120B IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the trial Court.4. The trial Court after hearing framed charged against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 363, 364A, 343,120-B and 327 IPC.5. After framing of charges, the accused respond...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Satyendra Kumar Dosi and Nagendra Kumar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Raj)258; [2009]315ITR172(Raj)
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. These two appeals under the provisions of Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act of 1961' hereinafter) filed by the Revenue are directed against order dt. 13th March, 2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (in short 'Tribunal' hereinafter) in IT(SS)A No. 14/Jd/2006 and IT(SS)A No. 15/Jd/2007 in respect of block period asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 2001-02, whereby the appeals preferred by the Revenue against separate but similar orders dt. 18th Oct., 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short 'CIT(A)' hereinafter] in the case of each of the respondent assessees deleting the penalty imposed under Section 158BFA(2) by the Assessing Officer (in short 'AO' hereinafter), stands confirmed.2. The respondent assessees and one Shri Virendra Kumar Dosi, are brothers, who are engaged in money-lending business jointly at Banswara. A search was conducted at their residential premises on 3rd Jan., 2002. The assessees f...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1925
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 29 August, 1997 rendered by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Baran whereby, he acquitted the accusedrespondents namely Thakur Lai and Phool Chandra in the offences under Sections 366, 365, 325, 324 read with Section 34, 379, 376(2)(g), 376(2)(g) read with Section 34, 376(2)(g) I.P.C. Section 3(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocites) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as' Act 1989').2. The prosecution case is:That on 28.06.1996 PW-1 Sharda, PW-2 Smt. Parvati, PW-6 Pratap and PW-7 Munna boarded a bus at Baran to reach their village Balarpur Uperheiti, and alighted at bus stand Mamooni at about 8 p.m. Since it was too late, they all stayed at Mamooni and having taken their food went on the roof of a school to sleep. It is alleged by the complainant Mst. Parvati that in the intervening night of 28th and 29th of June of 1996 at about 1:00 - 1:30 (A.M.) when she was sleeping, a person touched to awak...
Rajendra Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj2977
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 4.9.2000 whereby appeal filed by him was dismissed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. Petitioner in the aforesaid appeal challenged the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of his gratuity, commutation of pension and final pension on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1999 and as on that date no criminal case was pending against him in much as sanction for filing challan in the criminal case against the petitioner, which was made basis, was itself issued on 21.6.1999 in relation to incident of year of 1991-1992. It was argued that the petitioner had no information of the said criminal case when he retired and it has been mentioned even in the order passed by the Tribunal that even at that time matter was pending on the stage of prelimina...
Gajendra @ Rocky and Surendra @ Palli Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN472
S.P. Pathak, J.1. These two criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed against the judgment and order dt. 27.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur District Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 139/2001 (116/1998) whereby appellants Gajendra @ Rocky and Surendra @ Palli have been convicted and sentenced as under:Gajendra @ RockyUnder Section 376(2)(g) IPC : 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.Under Section 376 IPC : 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.Under Section 366A IPC : 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.Under Section 323 IPC : acquittedSurendra @ PalliUnder Section 376(2)g IPC : 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.Under Section 366A IPC : 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.2. In default of payment each of the appellant was directed to undergo one year imprisonment.3. Since both the appeals...
Bhura Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN486
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing impugned order Annex.-2 dt. 26.04.2007 and auction notice Annex.-3 dt. 08.08.2007 passed by the Addl. District Collector, Pali and Gram Panchayat Mundara Tehsil Bali (District Pali).2. According to the facts of the case, a revision petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 97 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the same was decided by the Addl. District Collector, Pali against the respondents and patta issued in favour of respondent No. 2 by the Gram Panchayat Mundara under Rule 158 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 was cancelled. The petitioners are claiming their right on the basis of their old possession, therefore, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Addl. Collector, Pali to the extent of passing the order for auction of the land vide order dt. 26.04.2007, Annex.-2.3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Addl. District Collector has ex...
Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bandikui and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj666
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dt. 09.03.1995 by which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and difference of salary and that of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension with direction not to recover a sum of Rs. 5,174.97 from the petitioner.2. Shri Nitin Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact, no enquiry as required by Rule 53 read with Appendix-B thereto of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market (Market Committee Employees) Service Rules, 1975 (for short, 'Rules of 1975') was held and that respondents did not examine a single witness to prove as many as 23 charges against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, one Assistant Director was made the enquiry officer but subsequently when he did not submit the enquiry report, he was changed and one Shri Shankar Lal Koolwal Supervisor Mandi Samiti was appointed as enquiry officer. Shri Shankar Lal Ko...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »