Rajasthan Court March 2010 Judgments

Kishna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Govind Mathur, J.1. By judgment dated 14.11.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, the appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 341 Indian Penal Code and is sentenced as under:341 IPC : Simple imprisonment for one month;323 IPC : Simple imprisonment for six months; and302 IPC : Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- andin default of payment of fine to further undergosimple imprisonment for six months.2. As per written report Ex. P/1, one Shri Heeraram on 15.7.2002 reported at Police Station Dhorimanna that at about 11:00 AM on the same day his daughter Smt. Kesi met him on way from Dhorimanna to Mithada. While weeping, she stated that her husband Kishna Ram was standing below a 'khejri' at the time when she was going to the fields from dhani with two of her sons Mahesh and Vikas. Kishna Ram stopped them and tried to strangulate Mahesh and Vikas. On crying, Kishna Ram gave a 'kudali' blow to both the boys as a consequent t...

C.i.T. Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti

Court: Rajasthan

1. Though the matter is listed for orders on the application moved by the appellant for amendment in the memo of appeal, however, at the request and with the consent of the learned for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at this stage.2. The learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the substantial questions of law as formulated in this appeal essentially stand decided against the appellant for the view already taken by this Court in I.T. Appeal No. 107/2007 : Commissioner of Income-Tax v. K.U.M.S. Jaisalmer decided on 18.03.2008 reported in (2008) 216 CTR 281 (Raj.).3. The instant appeal was admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in directing to grant the registration under Section 12AA of the IT Act to the assessee ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent assessee can be said to be a Trust or an Instituti...

Nand Ram Vs. Dhudi and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Challenge in this D.B. Civil Special Appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is to the correctness of the judgment dated 03.05.2000 rendered in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 73 of 1985 by the learned Single Judge, by which the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 Dhudi W/o Roopa Jat (original defendant No. 2) against the appellant (original plaintiff) came to be allowed and thereby judgment and decree dated 30.04.1985 passed by learned District Judge, Balotra camp Barmer (for short, 'trial Court') rendered in Civil Original Suit No. 19 of 1982 has been dismissed, and resultantly, the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff Nand Ram against defendant No. 1 & 2 seeking specific performance of contract pursuant to agreement dated 26.01.1981 has been dismissed.2. Facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff Nand Ram filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 & 2 Khetu and D...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ranjeet Kumar and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

ORDER1. In all the above cases, common question of law is involved, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these writ petitions are decided by this common order while taking into consideration facts narrated in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5759/2007 Union of India and Ors. v. Ranjeet Kumar and Anr....2. Briefly stated, facts of the case indicate that employee Ranjeet Kumar filed original application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 in which order of penalty of dismissal dated 19.07.2004 and order of appellate authority dated 14- 11/12-2004 were challenged and following prayer was made:(a) That the application may kindly be allowed and the applicant be awarded the cost of litigation.(b) That the impugned enquiry report Annexure A-3 and orders Annexure A-2 passed by the disciplinary authority dated 19-7-2004 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against the applicant and the Annexure A-1, passed by the Appellate authority dated 14-11/12-04 u...

J.L. Mehsani Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 22.08.1997 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition (CWP No. 1659/1984) filed by the petitioner-appellant wherein he prayed for quashing of the orders dated 10.10.1977, 25.03.1980, and 24.03.1984.2. By the order dated 10.10.1977, the Disciplinary Authority, after departmental inquiry, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner-appellant the penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension per Clause (v) of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'); and by the orders dated 25.03.1980 and 24.03.1984, respectively the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities proceeded to reject the appeal and the review petition filed by the petitioner-appellant.3. Briefly put the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that the appellant J.L. Mehsani, then working as Pa...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Basta Ram Naval

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Accounts), Government of India and other authorities of the Ministry of Defence are challenging the judgment dated 07.08.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 5/2009, by which, the learned Tribunal allowed the original application filed by respondent Basta Ram Naval and passed the following order:4. Since the applicant is to retire in another eleven months, I will be failing in my duty if, I do not pass any positive orders, therefore, the O.A. is allowed with cost as the answering respondent has interdicted judicial process by colourable and palpably false contentions. While balancing the twelve years of agony of the applicant and the need for supervisory prominence of Senior Officers and the following directions are issued:(i) The respondents shall transfer and post the applicant to a post to which he is entit...

Shiv Kumar @ Pappu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

C.M. Totla, J.1. Appellants per judgment dated 17.10.2002 are held guilty and sentenced as under:(i) Appellant Shiv Kumar for the offence of (a) Section 302 IPC - life imprisonment with fine Rs. 500/-, in default one month's simple imprisonment; (b) Section 148 IPC - three years rigorous imprisonment; (c) Section 145 Railways Act - two months simple imprisonment with fine Rs. 100/-, in default seven days.Appellants (ii) Purshottam Lal, (iii) Satiya, (iv) Balia, (v) Omprakash (and also (vi) Subhash) (a) of Section 147 IPC - two years rigorous imprisonment; (b) Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC - life imprisonment and fine Rs. 500/- in default one month's simple imprisonment; (c) Section 145 Railways Act - two months simple imprisonment with fine Rs. 100/-, in default seven days.2. Appeal No. 945/02 challenges conviction and sentence of appellant Shiv Kumar @ Pappu, whereas other appeals are of remaining five. Appellant Subhash (No. in appeal No. 878/02) expired so appeal for him aba...

Ramjas and ors. Vs. State

Court: Rajasthan

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this appeal, appellants Ramjas, Mange Ram and Amar Singh are challenging the judgment dated 31.10.1985 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 16/84, by which the appellants were convicted for committing offence under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment of two months.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21st April, 1984 FIR Ex.P/1 was registered at Police Station Bhadra, District Sri Ganganagar against six persons out of which four were named and two not named. The said FIR was lodged by PW1 Het Ram S/o Bhoma Ram, in which it is stated that before 15 years from the date of occurrence accused appellant Ramjas entered in the house of Jeevan Ram with some evil intention and Gharsi Ram deceased gave beatings to Ramjas in those days due to that incident accused Ramjas used to keep enmity with Gharsi Ram. On the day of incident, th...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Laxmi Enterprises and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Vineet Kothari, J.1. This four appeals have been filed by the Union of India being Jodhpur making the arbitration award in favour of the respondent contractor M/s Laxmi Enterprises, a Rule of Court as required under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. CMA No. 645/97 has been filed against the order dated 2/6/97 passed by learned ADJ No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 5/97. CMA No. 206/2002 has been filed against the order dated 23/10/2001 passed by Learned ADJ No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 7/97. CMA No. 207/2002 has been filed against the order dated 23/10/200 1 passed by ADJ No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 6/1997 and CMA No. 208/2002 has been filed against the order dated 23/10/200 1 passed by learned ADJ No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 4/97.3. The facts of CMA No. 645/97 are taken illustratively.4. Learned ADJ No. 2, Jodhpur has found that the learned arbitrator had partly allowed the claim of the contractor in respect of supply of furniture by him u...

Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1318

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. By way of this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the complainant petitioner Ram Kumar has prayed to set-aside the order dated 6th March, 2003 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh in Criminal Revision No. 15/2003, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the criminal revision filed by the accused respondents and quashed the order dated 22nd February, 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghadsana in Criminal Case No. 134/2003 pertaining to FIR No. 112/2001 of P.S. Ghadsana registered for the offences under Sections 306 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.2. Skipping unnecessary details, contextual facts, in nub, depict thus:One complaint by Ram Kumar came to be filed on 2nd March, 2001 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghadsana, which was sent for investigation to police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As per the complaint, two daughters of Het Ram namely Birma and Indraj were...