Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1975CriLJ968; 1975()WLN1
S.N. Modi, J1. The two appellants. Bakhtawar Singh and Karnailsingh along with their fathers, Narsingh and Gurbux-singh respectively were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar acquitted Narsingh and Gurbux Singh and convicted the appellants for ant offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder Jaggasingh and Balbirsingh by causing injuries to them by 303 rifles and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life, Jaggasingh succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The appellants were further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The appellants have come-up in appeal against their convictions and sentences.2. The incident relating to this, case took place at village Khaliwala, district Ganganagar, on 23-3-1972 at about p.m. in killa No. 5 of the field belonging t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1975Raj134; 1974(7)WLN965
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', by a wife against whom the learned District Judge has passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.2. The parties, who were. Hindus, were married according to Hindu rites on 4-5-65 (Baisakh Sudi 3, Samvat year 2022) at Jodh-pur. The husband averred that after the marriage was celebrated the wife did not live with him. He made several attempts to induce his in-laws to scad his wife, but they did not heed. He, therefore, made the application under Section 9 of the Act in the court of the learned District Judge on 14-12-1968. The wife appeared to be a minor at the time the proceedings were commenced and,therefore, a guardian ad litem was appointed for her. The guardian ad litem resisted the application on a number of grounds. It was pleaded that there was no 'Muklava' ceremony and, therefore, the marriage was not complete and then th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974WLN839
1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions complain that their liberty has been infringed on account of their unlawful detention under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). We shall examine the validity and legality of their detention in the light of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the procedural safeguards provided under the Act.2 As the case of both the petitioners is common and the grounds of their detention are identical, it would be proper to dispese of both the petitions by a common order. We will, however, mention the facts with reference to the writ petition No. 2223 of 1974.3. The facts are brief and simple The two petitioners namely, Bhagwan Das, and Nathmal, are brothers and ate partners carrying on their partnership business at Sikar under the name and style of M/s Ramesh Kumar Bhagwan Das. They deal in general merchandise and according to them, they carried on thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1971WLN23
Kan Singh, J.1. Accused Mangal Singh and Sahab Singh were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge No. 1, Dholpur of offences under Sections 326 and 326 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code respectively Each one of them was awarded a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/-; in default six months' further rigorous imprisonment. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge further ordered that at amount of Rs. 250/- out of the fine, if realised, shall be paid to injured Gordhana. The accused lodged an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Bharatpur which was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dholpur who had dismissed it and maintained the conviction and the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners. They have come up to this Cour in revision.2. There was bad blood between P.W. 1 Gordhana and the two accused on account of a dispute about an agricultural land. Mangal Singh was the son aged about 14 years at the time and Sahab Singh was his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1967Raj190; 1967CriLJ1053
ORDERB.P. Beri, J. 1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pali, dated 6th July, 1966, who maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicants under Sections 295 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The circumstances leading up to the present application for revision briefly stated are these: On 7th April, 1964 some ladies of Jetaran went for worship to the temple of Mataji outside Mertji Darwaja near Jagannathji-ki-Bavri, Jetaran. To their suprise they did not find the idols in the temple and even the Chabutra on which the idols stood and the steps leading to the Chabutra were found damaged. On 8th April, 1964 some Hindu residents of Jetaran made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jetaran that in the said temple there were idols of Seetlamataji, Achparaji, Bodarji and others and these idols were removed dishonestly from the Chabutra by some Musalmans which has occasioned an injury t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj153
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Allahnoor under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ, direction or order to the District Magistrate of Chittorgarh, and arises in the following circumstances:2. The applicant is a person carrying on trade and business of manufacturing file-works, and sale or gun-powder at Nimbahera. In that connection, he applied to the District Magistrate of Chittorgarh for a no-objection certificate under Rule 85(3) of the Explosives Rules as he desired to obtain a license for 200 pounds of gun-powder from the Chief Inspector of Explosives. The District Magistrate, however, rejected the application without even looking at the site where the applicant proposed to carry on the business, and gave, no reasons to the applicant for such rejection.The applicant, therefore, has come up to this Court and his contention is that he is being deprived of his occupation, and thus his fundamental right granted under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution has been violat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER D.B.Habeas Corpus Petition No.5/2015 Poonam Chand Bhadu versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.Date of order: 10.2.2015 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr.CS Kotwani, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Panwar, Addl. Advocate General. The instant Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner Poonam Chand Bhandu, uncle of detenu Tola Ram S/o Kishana Ram, resident of Tilak Nagar, Bikaner against the order dated 2.6.2014 (Annex.1) passed by the District Collector, Bikaner whereby the District Collector, Bikaner while exercising power under Section 3(1) of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006 for short) passed an order of detention of detenu Tola Ram. In the writ petition, although so many grounds are raised by the petitioner, but the main ground is that the satisfaction recorded by the District Collector, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SBC First Appeal No.469/2009 Ram Singh & Ors. vs. Bhikam Chand & Ors. Judgment dt:28. 1/2015 1/35 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Ram Singh & Ors. vs. Bhikam Chand & Ors. S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL No.469/2009 DATE OF JUDGMENT :28. h January, 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Jitendra Chopra, for the appellant-defendants Mr. Suresh Shrimali, ]. Mr.Sundeep Bhandawat,]. for the respondent-plaintiffs. Mr.Ashok Patel, ]. BY THE COURT: REPORTABLE1 The defendants Ram Singh s/o Ghasi Ram & ors have filed the present first appeal under Section 96 CPC against Bhikam Chand s/o Ram Jeevan & anr. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12/8/2009 passed learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur in a suit for specific performance being Civil Suit No.603/2004 (351/2004) Bhikam Chand & Arun Kumar vs. Ram Singh s/o Ghasi Ram & Ors.2. The said suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs Bhikam Chand & Ors. on 2/11/200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Sunil Ambwani, ACJ. 1. We have heard Ms. Indira Jai Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, Ms. Bindu N. Doddahat and Mr. Satish Kumar for the petitioners in DBCWP No.375/2015-Dulari Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and DBCWP No.376/2015- Norati and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.; Mr. Rajendra Soni in DBCWP No.1/2015, Mr. Pradeep Kalwania in DBCWP No.209/2015; Shri S.S. Hora in DBCWP Nos.503/2015 and 504/2015; Mr. Vijay Choudhary in DBCWP No.251/2015, Mr. Hanuman Choudhary in DBCWP No.250/2015, Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj in DBCWP Nos.121/2015 and 122/2015, and Mr. Bharat Yadav for the petitioners. Mr. Narpal Mal Lodha, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Vishal Soni, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Anurag Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. R.B. Mathur, appear for the State of Rajasthan and other respondents. 2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
The instant writ petition is directed against the judgment cum award dated 21.9.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner in Case No. 40/1990 whereby the reference made by the State Government under Section 10(1)(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was disposed of directing that the dismissal of the respondent workman Mahendra Yadav from service of petitioner school shall be effective from 21.9.1994. Succinctly stated the facts are that the respondent no. 2 workman was engaged as watchman in the petitioner school in the year 1977. It appears that there were complaints regarding the performance of the duties and conduct of the employee on which he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 20.3.1986 after holding a domestic enquiry wherein it was found that the workman was guilty of misconduct. The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Bikaner under Section 10(1)(G) of the I.D.Act. The Labour Court by its order dated 28...
Tag this Judgment!