Rajasthan Court February 2010 Judgments

Sanwar Mal Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

C.M. Totla, J.1. Challenged is appellant's conviction for the offence of Section 302 IPC and awarded sentence of life imprisonment with fine Rs. 500/-.2. Appeal No. 387/03 is preferred by jail, whereas appeal No. 513/03 is representative appeal, both these appeals are being decided by this judgment.3. Sequence of events, per prosecution, is that at about 2 A.M. in intervening night between August 14th & 15th, 02, appellant Sanwarmal S/o. Heeralal himself coming police station Pilibanga, orally told the then Incharge Sub-Inspector Kailashdan PW 7 that he and his brother Bhanwarlal came there at Mandi Pilibanga 10-12 years ago and both doing work of Halwai (confectioners), used to live at Shyam Misthan Bhandar and go for work as and when available, otherwise working and sleeping at above shop, subsequently also came at Pilibanga Bhanwarlal Nai (PW 4) and Nandu Panwar (deceased) of their village who learnt work from appellant and his brother and then as Nandu learnt work well he ' feeding...

L.Rs. of Late Shri Mohan Das Vs. the Addl. District Judge No. 3 and or ...

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR2010Raj80

ORDER COURT ...

Banshi Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are seeking their regularization on the post of Gram Sewak and challenging the date fixed as 31.12.1985 in the notification dated 7.3.1989 because only persons who have been appointed by that time i.e., 31.12.1985 alone can have regularization of their services.3. As per the facts, the petitioners are appointee on the post of Gram Sewak, but after 31.12.1985 they were appointed for 6 months or till regularly selected candidates are made available. The petitioner's services were terminated by orders dated 20.1.1988 and 15.6.1988 without there being availability of any regularly selected candidate. The petitioners then preferred separate writ petitions Nos. 1850/1988, 1851/1988, 1863/1988, 1834/1988 and 1835/1988 to challenge the said orders dated 20.1.1988 and 15.6.1988. The petitioner's those writ petitions were allowed by the common judgment dated 7.9.1995 on the ground that petitioner's services cannot be te...

L.Rs. of ImamudIn and ors. Vs. Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1 and ...

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1370

Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 13.7.2001 passed by the learned trial Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Bhilwara in Civil Suit No. 2/1992 Immamuddin (tenant) v. Prem Kishan S/o Shri Kishan (plaintiff). By this order, the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the defendants - petitioners Immuddin seeking amendment in the written statement seeking to add para No. 25 in the written statement.2. The case appears to have long chequered history of litigation between the parties. However, the short controversy involved before this Court is validity of said order passed by the learned trial Court on 13.7.200 1 on an application filed for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.3. The facts relating to the present controversy in brief can be summarized as under:4. A Civil Suit No. 301/1966 was filed by Mangilal, Chunni Lal and Santosh Kumar S/O of Sh. Laxmi Narayan Agarwal (original tenants) and M/...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanna and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1336

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this bunch of intra-court appeals, filed under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is challenging the common judgment dated 05.11.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, learned Single Judge dismissed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 1988; and, partly allowed S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 8/1988 with cost and held the insurance company liable to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Brief facts stated in the claim petitions filed by respective claimant-respondents are that on 31.05.1979 truck No. GTY 4126, owned by Suresh Nathuram Agrawal (respondent No. 3) and insured by appellant was bringing cement from Kandla to Banswara and said vehicle was driven by driver Laxman. Injured Radha Kishan, Nanu Ram, Girdhari and Kamla and deceased Laxman, Gangaram and Bherunath boarded it at the bus stand of the village Mangana along with their baskets of fish after paying their fare and also the freigh...

Ranjeet Das Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, has moved this second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The first application for bail (No. 5916/2009) was rejected by this Court on 12.11.2009 as not pressed at the given stage with the following order:Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall stand advised not to press on this bail application at this stage but to take recourse to the appropriate remedy at the later stage; and with these submissions, does not press on this bail application at this stage.Accordingly, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Ranjeet Das S/o Maheshwar Das is dismissed as not pressed at this stage.2. The petitioner, thereafter, moved another application for bail before the learned Trial Court that came to be rejected on 22.01.2010 with the observations that the charges had been fra...

Ramesh Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner preferred the writ petition No. 698/2006 challenging his transfer order dated 18.1.2006, which was stayed by this Court vide order dated 16.2.2006. Then, the petitioner again transferred vide order dated 15.7.2006 and that order was also stayed in writ petition No. 698/2006 vide order dated 21.7.2006. Thereafter, the order dated 21.7.2006 was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 6.12.2006.3. Now the petitioner has been transferred by a fresh order from the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Pali to Treasury, Pali and in the same order, there is transfer order for about 40 persons alongwith the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that one Sh. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit, who was posted in the Panchayat Samiti, Pali has been transferred to the office of the Tehsil Pali. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently is that in spite of the fact that the interim orders passed by this Court...

Ms. Rubina Bano Vs. State and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

1. This is an intra-court appeal filed by writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 197/06 under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 7.2.2008 passed in the above writ petition. Though it is barred by 15 days, we have ignored the issue of limitation and perused the impugned order with a view to find out whether the appeal has any merit or not.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.3. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by making following observations:Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been said in the reply that the petitioner could not secure sufficient merit and, therefore, unless something is given in writing, the petition cannot be thrown on the ground as raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that he is making statement at bar and submitted a document in...

Varda Ram and anr. Vs. Uma Ram and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Vineet Kothari, J.1. From the averments in the CMA and after hearing learned Counsels at some length, it appears that there are rival claims for the management of registered public trust known as Shri Gautam Rishi Trust Meen aSamaj Gyarah Pargana, Sirohi, Pali and Jalor. The said public trust is registered and its registration number is 03/07/Sirohi.2. The appellants before this Court Varda Ram and Maga Ram claimed to have been elected as President and Treasurer of the said Trust in the election held on 23.2.2009 whereas the respondent submitted that no election was held on 23.2.2009 but due and proper elections were held on 15.6.2009 and 16.6.2009 and the respondents were elected as office bearers of the said public trust.3. In the suit filed by the present appellants an application for temporary injunction was also filed which has come to be rejected by the learned District Judge, Sirohi by the impugned order dated 19.2.2010.4. The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpu...

Sadhu Ram and anr. Vs. Ram Kishore and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Vineet Kothari, J.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the matter is covered by the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Laxman Lal v. Kanti Lal and Ors. (S.B. CMA No. 459/2008) decided on 1 5/9/2008. He submits that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was not even framed and after the trial was completed, the learned MACT, Bhadra dismissed the claim petition only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction with it. While controverting the ground of said dismissal of claim petition, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that at the fag end of the trial, the learned Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.2. This Court in the aforesaid judgment held as under:I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. The facts referred above are not in dispute so far as filing of the claim by the claimant on 29th Sept., 2004, filing of reply by the...