Rajasthan Court December 2011 Judgments

State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Lal

Court: Rajasthan

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.01.2008, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent for offences under Sections 354, 456 IPC and for offence under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act', for short), the State has filed this criminal leave to appeal before this Court.Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the accused-respondent on hyper technical grounds such as delay in lodging of the FIR, the non-reporting of the incident by the prosecutrix (PW-1) to her other relatives and neighbors, and on the ground that there are contradictions between the testimonies of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her daughter, Vidya, (PW-2) and her husband, Ramesh (PW-3). According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has presented a consistent story mentioned in the FIR, and narrated by the p...

Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital and Medical Research Institute an ...

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

Ashok Parihar, President: 1. Both the appeals are directed against order dated 16.3.2006 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur II by which while allowing the claim of the complainant in case of medical negligence, the hospital and the concerned doctor have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 57,542 for the medicines and Rs. 75,000 plus Rs. 2,000 for mental agony and other expenses. 2. It has been alleged by the complainant that he was admitted in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur on 19.3.1998 complaining pain in right leg/hip and was under treatment of Dr. Shailendra Srivastava working in the hospital. The concerned doctor diagnosed him as suffering from Pyogenic Septic and treatment was given accordingly. The complainant was discharged from Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur on 2.5.1998. 3. Not getting the proper relief the complainant consulted Dr. C.S. Sharma of SMS Hospital, Jaipur on 9.12.1998 and after various investigations, x-rays and blood tests the complaina...

Surendra Kumar Golcha Vs. State of Raj. and Another

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ281(NOC)

1. This misc. petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Surendra Kumar Golcha, against the order dated 28.2.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Dausa in Criminal Revision No. 12/2007 (old 58/2005) whereby the revision petition was dismissed and the order dated 5.4.2005 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dausa taking cognizance against owner of Golcha Group Surendra Kumar Golcha and Abimanyu Golcha for offence under section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act in complaint case No.912 of 2003 was maintained. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is having a factory in Dausa which was established by him long back. This factory was established on the land comprising in old khasra No. 356 and new number of khasra is 768. The neighbouring khasra No. 769 is a Government land and entered as such in the name of the Government in revenue records. The petitioner has made encroachment on the land in Khasra No. 769. A notice under section 91 of t...

Maheshwari Agro Industries Vs. Union of India

Court: Rajasthan

1. The important question which requires consideration in the present case is as to whether the first appellate authority, namely, Commissioner of the Income-tax (Appeals) or Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) have power to grant stay and decide the stay application filed along-with appeal/s filed before them under Section 246/246A of Act respectively or not. The concomitant question, which would arise is whether the power of the Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act of 1961 to grant stay is there with the Assessing Authority during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority; and how such powers of ‘treating the assessee as not being in default in respect of amount in dispute in the appeal’, have to be exercised by such Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act. 2. Before coming the provisions of the Act and interpretation thereof, a brief look at the facts in ...

Babu Lal Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, and O ...

Court: Rajasthan

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 4th May, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar, did not allow the petitioner-defendant to mark exhibit on the partition deed, as the same was not registered under the Registration Act, 1908. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case leading to the writ petition are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for partition stating that one property situated at village Badoda Mev, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, was the joint property. It was further averred that the parties to the suit were members of one family. Both the parties were the legal descendants of common ancestor Bohara and the property in dispute belonged to deceased Bohara on which plaintiffs' father Badri and defendant Babu lal resided jointly. It is also alleged in the plaint that Badri Prasad and defendant Babu lal had partitioned their properties by their mutual consent and out of the total property, one Haveli ca...

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Ms. Pooja Meena and Another

Court: Rajasthan

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (the “RPSC for short) has challenged the order dated 14-10-2010, passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan Information Commission, Jaipur under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘the RTI Act’ for short) in appeal No.649/2010, whereby the petitioner RPSC has been directed to supply all information as required by the respondent non-petitioner Pooja Meena (‘the Non-petitioner’ for short). 2. Learned counsel for the RPSC submits that insofar as the non-petitioner seeks photo copies of answer sheets written by her in the RAS Examination, 2007, in the subjects General Knowledge, Political Science, Philosophy, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya (AIR 2011 SC 3336), the RPSC will allow the non-petitioner to inspect her answer sheets in the aforesaid papers of RAS Ex...

Kanti and Another Vs. Additional Civil Judge and Others

Court: Rajasthan

1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 30th July, 2011, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kota dismissed the application of the defendants-petitioners dated 14th October, 2010, wherein he had implored the Court to delete the exhibits 3 and 13 marked on two documents. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent Abdul Majid against the defendant-petitioner Kanti and others. During the evidence of the plaintiff, many documents were filed and out of these documents, Ex. 3 and 13 were the agreement to sale, which were not duly registered under the provisions of Registration Act. Since the documents were not registered, hence they could not be admitted to evidence under the provisions of law. Learned trial court a...