Rajasthan Court April 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.
Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj169; RLW2009(3)Raj2052
R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the notification dated 31.12.1994 whereby the inspection charges have suddenly been increased by the State Government, aggrieved by the demand notice directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 69,360/- as inspection charges for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that Shree Shyam Filaments is a division of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short). On 01.05.2001, Shri Shyam Filaments entered into an agreement with Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., ('the Nigam' for short), respondent No. 1, for supply of electricity to it. In the agreement, Shri Shyam Filaments was described as 'the consumer'. According to the said agreement, the Nigam was responsible for supply of electricity at one point or more for industrial purpose upto maximum demands of 800 KVA. According to Claus...
ishwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN5
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., order ated 21.05.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, No. 2 (South), Udaipur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 34/05 has been challenged by the accused petitioner.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. It appears that on complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter), the trial Court took the cognizance and the trial proceeded. The complainant made his statement, produced the documents and got the documents exhibited. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner made his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and expressed desire to lead evidence in defence, however, moved an application summoning the witnesses mentioned in the application as defence witness, which came to be dismissed by order impugned. However, the petitioner was permitted to produce the defence witnesses on his own. ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3004
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 21.10.1992 rendered by the Judge, Special Court(Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby he acquitted accused-respondents namely Banwari Lal, Sita Ram and Smt. Sushila in the offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief is stated as under:On 7th May, 1987 marriage of deceased Smt. Pushpa was solemnized with Banwari Lal Gupta S/o. Radhey Shyam Gupta R/o. 4-ch-26, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. It is alleged that from the day first of her marriage, the in-laws of the deceased started complaining of deficient dowry. She was again and again reminded of the fact that the dowry articles, which she had brought from her house, were less in number and sub-standard in quality. The brothers of the deceased endeavoured to make the in-laws of the deceased understand and gave an un...
Superintendent (Prosecution) Vs. Sita Ram Somani and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3430
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 9th September, 1996 rendered by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan Jaipur, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents Sita Ram Somani and Om Prakash Soni in the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (herein after referred to as 'Act, 1962').2. The nub of the prosecution story is as under:That on a prior information regarding illicit transaction of contraband' gold the headquarter's Customs Preventive party reached the vicinity of residence of Sita Ram Somani, 'Somani Bhavan', Churu Ka Rasta, Jaipur on 1.1.1985. One Om Prakash while coming out of Somani Bhavan with a jute bag in his hand at about 10.30 hours reached at his Scooter No. RNB 5386 and kept the jute bag in the dicky of his Scooter. The Preventive Party nabbed him before he coufd start the Scooter. The search of the jute bag resulted in the recovery of 8 gold biscits with marking indicating their foreign origin. On se...
J.K. Cement Works and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN35
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner J.K. Cement Works and J.K. White Cement Works (Unit/Division of J.K. Cement Limited) impugning therein the attachment order issued under Section 8F of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) and also to quash the attachment of account No. 30234 with S.B.B. J. Merta City. The said account was attached by the respondent - Provident Fund Department for recovery of PF dues of Rs. 40,16,042/- pertaining to the period 1996-97 in respect of J.K. Tyre Cord, Kota and J.K. Acrylic, Kota (Units/Division of M/s J.K. Synthetics Limited).2. The ground of challenge by the present petition is that these two units J.K. Tyre Cord and J.K. Acrylic whose PF dues are sought to be recovered from the present petitioners are units of J.K. Synthetics Limited and not of J.K. Cement works and upon demerger scheme approved by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reco...
Manorama Asopa (Smt.) Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN77
Vineet Kothari, J.1. By these two petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned punishment orders dt. 29.05.2003 and Annex.25 dt. 06.10.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2-Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (in SBCWP No. 1120/2005) and Annex.17 dt. 06.10.2004 (in SBCWP No. 1310/2005). Both these penalty orders have been passed by the Director, Secondary Education under the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 under Rule 7 by imposing penalty of withholding of 5% of the pension amount payable to her in one case permanently and in another writ petition for a period of 1 year. The said penalty order was passed against the petitioner after holding an enquiry against the petitioner while she was working as Head-Mistress in Government School, Raj Mahal, Jodhpur under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules.2. The case set up by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Grade II in the Education Department of Government of Rajasthan on 17.10.1...
Mangal Singh Vs. Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN217
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned award dt. 28th April, 1995 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, Camp Alwar, whereby the Labour Court recorded a finding that there was no relationship of 'master and servant' in between the employer Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B. (Rural) Mandal, Ramgarh, Alwar and the workman Mangal Singh and, as such, the retrenchment of the workman by the employer is proper and valid and the workman is not entitled for any relief.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner workman was appointed as orderly with effect from 2nd June, 1980 and he worked up-to 31st May, 1983 and thereafter without any notice or reason and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the services of the petitioner workman were wrongly retrenched by the respondents. A reference was made by the State Government but th...
V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN250
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet dt. 30.05.2008 issued for misconduct of declaring him hostile by the A.C.D. Court while recording his statement on 20.11.2002.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that statement of the petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in a trap case by the police as an independent witness on 20.11.2002. Subsequently, he was called as prosecution witness by the A.C.D. Court and his evidence was recorded on 09.03.2007. At the request of the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner was declared hostile witness and permission to cross-examine was granted to the Public Prosecutor. Treating the contradiction in the two aforesaid statements - (i) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and (ii) Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 30.05.2008.3. It is stated in the writ petition that whether a witness is trustworthy or not, has to be decided by the Court and not by the Governme...
Prema Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN267
C.M. Totla, J.1. Appellants Prema Ram and Rajendra Kumar alongwith Banwari, Uma Shankar, Balbir Singh faced charge for the offences of Sections 399, 402 IPC and 24 Arms Act before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 11/1985 and as per judgment dt. 19/20.04.88 learned Judge acquitting two others convicted appellants for the offences of Section 25 Arms Act sentenced each to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default three months rigorous imprisonment-aggrieved of their conviction, two appellants have preferred this appeal.2. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and also learned Public Prosecutor.3. Factual matrix emerging is some what like that on 09.05.1985, Constables Pradeep Kumar PW/3 and Asu Singh PW/7 of GRP, Sriganganagar were on duty on train 1 BHL-Hanumangarh to Bikaner. As train reached near Gajsinghpur, CTI of train Prabhudan PW-16 told them of 4-5 persons abusing passengers in general coach who perhaps pos...
Kamlesh Patidar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4161; RLW2009(3)Raj2472
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.2. A case was registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). The allegation is that while S.H.O., Police Station Bhawani Mandi was on patrolling, then he recovered 8 kg. 500 gms. opium from the petitioner. The contraband so recovered from the petitioner was thereupon sent for FSL Report and therein it gave positive tests for the presence of chief constituents of coagulated juice of opium poppy having 2.47% (two point four seven per cent) morphine. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that contents of morphine is found 2.47%, thus on the total weight of the contraband so recovered, if morphine is taken note of, then it comes to less than the commercial quantity. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.3. Learned Counsel for petitioner made a reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of E. Micheal Ra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »