Rajasthan Court July 2011 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.
Vaseem at Pilot and ors Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that so far as petitioners no.2 and 3 are concerned, there is no overt-act assigned to them in the FIR. It was the petitioner no.1 who threatened the complainant on telephone and asked them to give one thousand rupees to remaining accused. Regarding previous cases, although learned counsel submitted that against petitioners no.2 and 3 all the cases are of minor in nature. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners for the present does not press the bail application of the petitioner no.1 Vaseem @ Pilot. The bail application of petitioner no.1 is dismissed. 5. So far petitioners no.2 and 3 are concerned, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and prop...
Omprakash Sharma Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order of suspension dt.01.11.2006 passed by the authority in exercise of power u/R.13 of the CCA Rules,1958. 2. In the light of subsequent proceedings which have taken place by way of inflicting penalty upon the petitioner after regular charge-sheet being served that too does not survive. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that he has further prayed in the instant petition that on account of disciplinary action being initiated against the petitioner his fixation in the revised pay-scales has not been made and during pendency of disciplinary enquiry he stood retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. Counsel for respondent at the same time has brought to the notice of this Court that apart from the charge-sheet at one stage served upon the petitioner dt.15.12.2006 pursuant to which he was punished with penalty vide order dt.05.04.2010, another charge-sheet u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958 dt.01.09.2008 was al...
Het Ram Vs. Amar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of disputed property. Defendant filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that suit is barred by principle of res-judicata. The trial Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit. The judgment passed by the trial Court has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court while dismissing plaintiff's first appeal. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of plaintiff. 3. From the facts narrated in the impugned judgments, which have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the parties, it reveals that earlier respondent had filed a suit for restoration of possession, which was decreed ex-parte against present appellant, the present appellant filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which was dismissed, against which he preferred appeal but without success. The original decree passed in favo...
Ramavtar Gupta Vs. Abdul Hamid.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Plaintiff-appellant's filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,400/-. Trial court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 20,135/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of notice till the date of recovery of the amount. Being aggrieved with the same both the parties preferred two separate appeals. First Appellate Court dismissed defendant's appeal in toto. So far as appeal filed by the plaintiff is concerned, the same was partly allowed and suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,400/- was decreed in his favour. However, the rate of interest for the period from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization was reduced from 18% per annum to 9% per annum. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal for enhancement of rate of interest from 9% per annum to 18% per annum. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no occasion for the first appellate court to reduce the rate of int...
Ram Bharos Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was arrested along-with several other co-accused persons, since his case is identical and in fact it stands on better footings than that of co-accused Ram Kalyan, whose second bail application no.3505/2010 was allowed by a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 13.01.2011 on consideration of fact that eye witness PW-7 Kalu Lal has stated that co-accused Ram Kalyan was having sword and inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Nand Behari by sword but according to statement of PW-3 Dr. Arun Sharma there was no injury found to have been caused by sword on the person of deceased Nand Behari. Reliance was placed on another statement of PW-8 Brij Raj, who is also an eye witness of the incident but he has not assigned any specific injury to have been caused by any parti...
Mukesh Pal Singh and Another Vs. Shri Hari NaraIn and Others.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition under Section 35(2) of the Rajasthan Sports(Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 against order dated 08.02.2011 passed by Secretary, Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby preliminary objections filed by the petitioners regarding maintainability of the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1, Hari Narain have been rejected. 3. The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that while rejecting preliminary objections of the petitioners about maintainability of the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1, the Appellate Authority has not assigned any reason, whereas as per settled law, even if preliminary objections are rejected, then the same have to be rejected by a speaking order. He, therefore, submitted that Appellate Authority may be directed to reconsider the preliminary objections about maintainability of the appeal and pass...
Mukanda Ram Vs. Bodu Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for appellant. 2. Plaintiff's/respondent's suit for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 23.06.1989 and for permanent injunction was decreed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court while dismissing first appeal of defendants. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of defendant No.2. 3. From the facts mentioned in the judgments of both the Courts below, which have not been controverted by the learned counsel for appellant also, it reveals that a land measuring 2 Bighas 7 Biswas, out of Khasra No.49 had already been sold to plaintiff through registered Sale Deed dated 10.08.1973 and the same was again sold vide impugned Sale Deed dated 23.06.1989. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court recorded a finding that defendants have not filed their written statements and from the evidence available on record, the suit of plaintiff is liable to be decreed. 4. The controversial issues in...
Chief Manager, Rsrtc Vs. Zalam Singh Through Lrs. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-Corporation assailing the order dt.12.02.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal disposing of the application filed by the petitioner-Corporation u/S.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. 2. From the material which has come on record it appears that respondent Zalam Singh (deceased) who was working as Driver, disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him and charge-sheet was served on 22.06.1996 in which he was held guilty and punished vide order dt.05.12.1996 (Annx.1) but because of pending industrial dispute application was filed by the Corporation seeking approval of punishment inflicted upon workman of removal from service before the Industrial Tribunal u/S.33(2)(b) of the Act,1947. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties on the fairness of the domestic enquiry arrived at the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not fair but at the same time it was further observed that in the ordinary course permission should have...
Hargyan and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. Challenge in this Criminal Misc. Petition is to the following orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas: i) Order dated 31st August, 2004, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarh Bass dismissed the application of accused Dharamveer seeking exemption from personal appearance in the Court. ii) Orer dated 4th March, 2005, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarh Bass declared the accused Dharamveer absconding and ordered to draw the separate proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of CrPC and also ordered to issue standing warrant of arrest against him. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned PP appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the petitioner no.2 is posted in Air Force. He being an employee of disciplinary force, is not sanctioned leave frequently by his superior authorites and thus, on ac...
Doongar Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. By way of the instant criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 21.2.2005, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 9th June, 1995, whereby Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur dismissed the protest petition. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned PP appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that one FIR No. 502/1992 came to be registered at Police Station, Kotwali, District Bharatpur for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. This FIR was lodged by the complainant Doonger Singh, who happens to be the father of the deceased Man Singh. The police, after completion of investigation, gave the Final Report unoccurred and on protest petition being filed by the complainant, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur having ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »