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.
Narpat Singh Vs. Moola Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3623
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Both these petitions, CWP No. 2529/2009 and CWP No. 2529/2009, having been filed against similar nature orders dated 18.02.2009 as passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur involving similar and akin issues have been heard together. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain these petitions; and both the petitions, being similar in nature, are taken up for disposal by this common order.2. The petitioner has filed before the Rent Tribunal separate petitions seeking eviction of the respective tenants-respondents, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The tenants have filed their reply contesting the petitions; and the petitioner has filed his rejoinder. After such filing of the pleadings, the tenants moved respective applications seeking to file supplementary replies essentially with the submissions that they had ...
Vijay Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN160
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the order dt. 13.02.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheem, district Rajsamand has been challenged.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that firstly as per Section 2 (q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005 hereinafter), the female petitioners cannot be made respondent in a proceeding initiated by respondent No. 2 Smt. Priyanka Kanwar under the Act of 2005. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Court at Bheem has no jurisdiction to inquire into and try the case as the respondent is permanent resident of Village Ghodiwara Khurd, District Jhunjhunu and therefore, the petition filed by the respondent No. 2 under the Act of 2005 at Bheem is not maintainable.4. The Expression 'respondent' has been defined in Section 2 (q) of the Act of 2005 which provid...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohd. Sharif and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4527; RLW2009(3)Raj2696
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.3.2000 passed by Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) Kota (Rajasthan) (for short 'the learned trial Court') passed in Sessions Case No. 140/1997, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents from the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.6.1996 at 10.45 PM complainant Arshad Hussain submitted a written report at P.S. Kunhadi, Kota, on the basis of which the police registered an FIR No. 134/96 for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.3. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences.4. The trial Court after hearing framed charges against the accused respondents, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter.5. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many...
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. R.S. Verma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ833Raj; RLW2009(4)Raj3195
Ashok Parihar, J. 1. After initiating disciplinary proceedings against respondent No. 1, the concerned employee, a memorandum of charges was issued to him oh 16.6.1989. After holding a regular enquiry, seven charges have been proved fully and one partly proved out of 9 charges. An opportunity of hearing was given to the concerned employee after supplying a copy of enquiry report. Considering the representation made by the concerned employee, as per provisions of Regulation 67-F of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Officers (Service) Regulations 1979, a major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the, concerned employee vide order dated 31st May, 1991. In the punishment order it has further been mentioned that concerned employee shall not be entitled for any salary, allowance and other benefits for the period of suspension except for the subsistence allowance already paid.2. Subsequently having denied pensionary benefits, a writ petition came to be filed before this Court on ...
Khemraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3541; RLW2009(4)Raj3254
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The present misc. application under Section 389 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of accused applicant Khemraj for staying the conviction order dated 30-4-2008 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 19/2005, whereby accused applicant Khemraj has been convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 147 IPC Rigorous imprisonment forthree months with a fineof Rs. 500/-, in defaultof payment of fine tofurther undergo one month'srigorous imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment forone year with a fine ofRs. 1,000/-, in defaultof payment of fine tofurther undergo two monthsrigorous imprisonment.Under Section 323/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment forthree months with a fine ofRs. 500/-, in default ofpayment of fine to furtherundergo one month'srigorous imprisonment.Under Section 324/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment forone year with a fine ofRs. 1,000/-, in defaultof payment of fine t...
M.P. Bhatnagar (Dr.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj2965
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with a prayer that an appropriate writ order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to pay simple interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of gratuity and commuted value of the pension which was paid with a delay of 10 years and 6 months.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired in the year 1988, whereas he was paid the arrears of commuted value of the pension and gratuity in the year 1998, therefore, he is entitled for interest on delayed payment. He submitted a representation but the respondents rejected the same. Hence the present writ petition has been preferred by him.4. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He preferred the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for the same relief which was dismissed vide o...
Agarwal Shiksha Saimiti (Shri) and anr. Vs. Sh. Nand Kishore Sharma an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3393
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since, on similar set of facts, common order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in the above appeals, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. The orders of compulsory retirement dated 27.6.1994 came to be challenged by the concerned employees before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur. After considering entire facts and circumstances, the Tribunal, dismissed the appeals filed by the concerned employees by a common order dated 30.5.1995 holding that since it was subjective assessment of the management there was no illegality in the orders of compulsory retirement. The learned Single Judge, however, while allowing the writ petitions challenging the orders of compulsory retirement as also the order of the Tribunal, quashed the order of compulsory retirement and set aside the order of the Tribunal. Directions were issued to the appellants to reinstate the concerned employees...
Lakshmi Cement (a Division of J.K. Corp. Ltd. (Now Renamed as J.K. Lak ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2679
Vineet Kothari, J.1. The Assessee, a cement manufacturer within the State of Rajasthan has filed this revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 being aggrieved by the judgment of the Tax Board dated 23.9.2005 allowing the revenue's appeal and holding that the assessee was not entitled to avail the partial exemption from sales tax under the Notification dated 6.5.1986 for the assessment year 2001-02 because it had made some inter-state sales during the said year in question and had availed concessional rate of tax @ 6% under the later Notification dated 21.01.2000 which contained a condition No. 3 that if the assessee avails such concessional rate of tax under the Notification dated 21.1.2000, he would not avail the benefit of partial exemption from sales tax under the Notification dated 6.5.1986.2. The assessing authority had imposed additional tax on the respondent assessee for the aforesaid period by the assessment order dated 26.8.2003 in view of the ci...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Balram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3027
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 23rd July, 1985 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota whereby the accused-respondents Balram and Nand Kishore have been acquitted of the offence under Section 376 of IPC2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as under:That on 12th June, 1984 at about 2:00 p.m., the prosecutrix was taking care of the vegetables grown in her field situated in village Jithani. The prosecutrix is said to be deaf and dumb. It is alleged that the accused-respondents Balram and Nand Kishore came there and having found the prosecutrix alone on the well, they forcibly ravished, her. PW-2 Dhuli Lal who was in his own field juxtaposed to the field of the prosecutrix, having heard her screams ran to the well. It is stated that both the accused-respondents having seen him fled from there. The father of, the prosecutrix was not in the village, on the day of occurrence, hence, one Gopal took the prosecutrix to the police...
Mohar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj617
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The accused appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated June 15, 2004 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindauncity Distt. Karauli whereby the accused appellants were convicted under Sections 498A and 304B IPC to suffer 2 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default to suffer three months RI and 10 years RI. Sentence of accused appellant Bisso Devi was suspended by the order of this Court dated August 2, 2005 and since then she is on bail. Sentence of accused appellant Mohar Singh, who was aged about 75 years, was suspended by the order of this Court dated October 11, 2006 and since then he is on bail. Accused appellant Amrit Lal is in judicial custody and he has remained in judicial custody for more than 6 years and 3 months and 2 days as of today.2. Brief facts of the case are that an fir was lodged by deceased's father Shriman on December 29, 2002 at Police Station Shrimahavirji. On the basis of the aforesaid fir the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »