Rajasthan Court February 2012 Judgments

Rameshwar Vs. Neelam

Court: Rajasthan

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-applicant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') challenging the order dated 3.8.07 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Chabra, District Baran (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Case No. 45/05 whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the appellant under Section 12 of the said Act. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 29.4.04. The appellant-applicant made an application being No. 45/05 before the trial court seeking annulment of the said marriage under Section 12 of the said Act on the ground that the marriage was solemnised by committing fraud. The said application was presented on 8.11.05 by the appellant-applicant and, therefore, the trial court dismissed the said application by the impugned order, on the ground that the application having ...

Vijay Kumar Rastogi Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Others

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2342

1. Both the revision petitions, one filed by the complainant, Vijay Kumar, and the other filed by the State of Rajasthan, challenge the order dated 06.01.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara whereby the learned Judge has discharged Smt. Nisha and Dilip Kumar Morwani of offence under Section 306 IPC. Since both these petitions arise out of the same impugned order, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.10.2010, Vijay Kumar Rastogi, the complainant, lodged a report at Police Station, Gulabpura wherein he claimed that due to the repeated threats given by his wife, Smt. Nisha, and by her father, Dilip Kumar Morwani, that they would involve his family in matrimonial disputes, his father, Ashok Kumar, committed suicide. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against Smt. Nisha and Dilip Kumar Morwani, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respectively for offence under Section 306 IPC...

M/S. Ind-swift Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another

Court: Rajasthan

ORDER: Instant petition has been filed assailing order of the authority dt.21.10.2011 (Annx.13) blacklisting the petitioner company from participating in all the tender process of Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Ltd (“RMSCL”) till 31.03.2012. It has come on record that the petitioner company was incorporated on 06.06.1986 and certificate for commencement of business was granted by Registrar of Companies on 15.12.1986. However, it is admitted by the petitioner company that it was blacklisted by Employees State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi (“ESIC”), vide order dt.11.08.2008 for a period of three years and the writ petition filed by the petitioner company before the High Court of Delhi against the order passed by ESIC dt.11.08.2008 as informed to this Court has been finally dismissed somewhere in March,2011. However, the petitioner company had participated in the tender process of RMSCL dt.02.06.2011 and the bids were opened on 05.07.2011 and after openi...

M/S. Bhagwati Bricks Bhatta Udyog Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

The State Commission: This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum, Pali dated 10.11.05 by which the complaint of the appellant/ complainant was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant /complainant had established a brick klin in village Mandal after taking financial assistance from the Central Cooperative Bank. Appellant had taken a insurance cover for Rs. 11 lakhs which covered the risk to his project by flood, fire etc. The complainant stated that on 29.6.02 there was heavy rainfall in the region. At that time around 50,000 bricks in the klin were being processed. Due to rainfall the water entered the chimny resulting into blast and his whole project was damaged. He stated that labourer's residential quarters, office building, furniture and other belongings were destroyed. He suffered a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs. He had stated that he informed the respondent no.3 ( the bank ) on the same day on telephone about this incident. Respondents no. 1 and 2...

J. V. V. N. Ltd. Vs. Ilmdeen @ Iliyadeen

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ3358

Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the appellant. Dr.Sachin Acharya, for the respondent. The Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., the appellant, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.8.2011, passed by Special Judge, Electricity Act Cases and Additional District and Sessions Judge NO.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent, Ilmdeen @ Iliyadeen, for offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Indian Electricity Act ('the Act', for short). Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 9.3.2011, the Vigilance Party of the appellant company had carried out an inspection of super transformer. When the meter box was inspected, it was discovered that the glass of the meter was open, and there were two CT wires which were attached. Thus, it was discovered that the meter box has been tampered with. It was also discovered that excess electricity load of 33 H.P. was being taken. Therefore, excess electricity was being stolen. The transformer along with meter, and...

Om Prakash Suthar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Others

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2341

1. The present misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.2, Sri Ganganagar, whereby, the learned Magistrate on the application of the accused has directed the petitioner to take oath in the name of 'Sayed Peer Baba'. The said order was challenged in revision and the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar has affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate by rejecting the revision on 09.06.2009 and hence the present misc. petition. 2. Assailing the orders impugned passed by the learned courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Oaths  Act, 1969, the manner in which the oath has to be administered is the discretion of the Court. The court can give direction to take the oath in a particular form but such a direction cannot be issued at the request of the accused. In these circumstances, the orders impugned passed by the courts below are abuse of...

Farooq Hasan Vs. Smt. Madina and Another

Court: Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the learned Family Court, Ajmer on the application submitted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by Smt. Madina, divorced wife of the petitioner and Kumari Aafrin, daughter of the petitioner for maintenance. Learned Family Court by the impugned order allowed maintenance of Rs.500/- to the wife of the petitioner and Rs.500/- to his daughter.                      Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has challenged the order in respect of grant of maintenance to Smt. Madina, the wife on the ground that she was a divorced lady and in accordance with the provisions of the Muslim Women [Protection of Rights and Divorce] Act, 1986 she was not entitled to any maintenance; post divorce and post period of 'iddat'. Apart from the above, it was also contended by...

Sharwan Ram and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the parties. These Revision Petitions have been preferred by the respective petitioners challenging the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Nagaur in Sessions Case No.22/2008 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 306, 120B and 323 IPC. Succinctly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the case are that one Bhinya Ram submitted a report on 11.11.2007 at P.S. Nagaur with the allegation that he came to know through a telephonic intimation that his son Poonam Chand had committed suicide by hanging himself. He further states that his son along with his wife Bhanwari live in their own house and he lives in neighbouring house and he had gone out on the day of occurrence. On coming back, his nephew Laxman informed him that Manish and Deepak, sons of the deceased, had informed him about the door of their father's room being locked from inside. On this, Laxman went to the house an...

Nitesh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Court: Rajasthan

The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 52./2008,whereby an application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been accepted. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner is facing trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC. After framing of the charges, the prosecution initiated its evidence and the examination-in-chief of witnesses PW 1 Jagdish Chandra, PW 2 Tara Devi and PW 4 Devi Lal, who are said to be material witnesses of the prosecution, were recorded. The examination-in-chief of PW 1 Jagdish Chandra was recorded on 29.9.2008 and the examination-inchief of witnesses PW 2 Tara Devi and PW 4 Devi Lal was recorded on 18.10.2008 and their cross-examination was kept reserved. It appears that thereafter th...