Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... similarly, mother of subhash also does not appear to be directly involved in the offence alleged by the prosecution. ..... geeta devi is not proved in the case for the offences charged against them. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
sbcwp no.11047/10 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. with 4 connected matters. judgment dt:30. h october, 2014 1/28 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.11047/2010 manoj avasthi & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.6508/2012 randhir vyas vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.1266/2013 anil purohit & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.1805/2014 ajit singh rathore & ors. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.4107/2014 date of judgment :30. h october, 2014 present hon'ble dr.justice vineet kothari mr.j.p.joshi, sr. advocate with ]. mr. khet singh ]. for the petitioners. mr. mukesh rajpurohit, ]. mr. rajesh panwar, addl. advocate general with mr.sunil joshi, for the state. mr. r.s.saluja, for the respondent jda, jodhpur. reportable by the court:1. these writ petitions involving common issues are being disposed of by this common order and the facts are illustratively taken from sbcwp no.11047/2010 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. sbcwp no.11047/10 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. with 4 connected matters. judgment dt:30. h october, 2014 2/28 2. the controversy arises out of the advertisement dated 10/2/2010 (annex.2) issued for 167 posts of junior engineers issued by the urban development & housing department of govt. of rajasthan and the eligibility criteria, inter alia, provided in the said advertisement .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
sbcwp no.11047/10 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. with 4 connected matters. judgment dt:30. h october, 2014 1/28 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.11047/2010 manoj avasthi & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.6508/2012 randhir vyas vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.1266/2013 anil purohit & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.1805/2014 ajit singh rathore & ors. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.4107/2014 date of judgment :30. h october, 2014 present hon'ble dr.justice vineet kothari mr.j.p.joshi, sr. advocate with ]. mr. khet singh ]. for the petitioners. mr. mukesh rajpurohit, ]. mr. rajesh panwar, addl. advocate general with mr.sunil joshi, for the state. mr. r.s.saluja, for the respondent jda, jodhpur. reportable by the court:1. these writ petitions involving common issues are being disposed of by this common order and the facts are illustratively taken from sbcwp no.11047/2010 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. sbcwp no.11047/10 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. with 4 connected matters. judgment dt:30. h october, 2014 2/28 2. the controversy arises out of the advertisement dated 10/2/2010 (annex.2) issued for 167 posts of junior engineers issued by the urban development & housing department of govt. of rajasthan and the eligibility criteria, inter alia, provided in the said advertisement .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
sbcwp no.11047/10 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. with 4 connected matters. judgment dt:30. h october, 2014 1/28 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.11047/2010 manoj avasthi & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.6508/2012 randhir vyas vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.1266/2013 anil purohit & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.1805/2014 ajit singh rathore & ors. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.4107/2014 date of judgment :30. h october, 2014 present hon'ble dr.justice vineet kothari mr.j.p.joshi, sr. advocate with ]. mr. khet singh ]. for the petitioners. mr. mukesh rajpurohit, ]. mr. rajesh panwar, addl. advocate general with mr.sunil joshi, for the state. mr. r.s.saluja, for the respondent jda, jodhpur. reportable by the court:1. these writ petitions involving common issues are being disposed of by this common order and the facts are illustratively taken from sbcwp no.11047/2010 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. sbcwp no.11047/10 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. with 4 connected matters. judgment dt:30. h october, 2014 2/28 2. the controversy arises out of the advertisement dated 10/2/2010 (annex.2) issued for 167 posts of junior engineers issued by the urban development & housing department of govt. of rajasthan and the eligibility criteria, inter alia, provided in the said advertisement .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
sbcwp no.11047/10 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. with 4 connected matters. judgment dt:30. h october, 2014 1/28 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.11047/2010 manoj avasthi & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.6508/2012 randhir vyas vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.1266/2013 anil purohit & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.1805/2014 ajit singh rathore & ors. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.4107/2014 date of judgment :30. h october, 2014 present hon'ble dr.justice vineet kothari mr.j.p.joshi, sr. advocate with ]. mr. khet singh ]. for the petitioners. mr. mukesh rajpurohit, ]. mr. rajesh panwar, addl. advocate general with mr.sunil joshi, for the state. mr. r.s.saluja, for the respondent jda, jodhpur. reportable by the court:1. these writ petitions involving common issues are being disposed of by this common order and the facts are illustratively taken from sbcwp no.11047/2010 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. sbcwp no.11047/10 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. with 4 connected matters. judgment dt:30. h october, 2014 2/28 2. the controversy arises out of the advertisement dated 10/2/2010 (annex.2) issued for 167 posts of junior engineers issued by the urban development & housing department of govt. of rajasthan and the eligibility criteria, inter alia, provided in the said advertisement .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
sbcwp no.11047/10 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. with 4 connected matters. judgment dt:30. h october, 2014 1/28 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.11047/2010 manoj avasthi & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.6508/2012 randhir vyas vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.1266/2013 anil purohit & anr. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.1805/2014 ajit singh rathore & ors. vs. state & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.4107/2014 date of judgment :30. h october, 2014 present hon'ble dr.justice vineet kothari mr.j.p.joshi, sr. advocate with ]. mr. khet singh ]. for the petitioners. mr. mukesh rajpurohit, ]. mr. rajesh panwar, addl. advocate general with mr.sunil joshi, for the state. mr. r.s.saluja, for the respondent jda, jodhpur. reportable by the court:1. these writ petitions involving common issues are being disposed of by this common order and the facts are illustratively taken from sbcwp no.11047/2010 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. sbcwp no.11047/10 hanuman prasad vyas & anr. vs. state & ors. with 4 connected matters. judgment dt:30. h october, 2014 2/28 2. the controversy arises out of the advertisement dated 10/2/2010 (annex.2) issued for 167 posts of junior engineers issued by the urban development & housing department of govt. of rajasthan and the eligibility criteria, inter alia, provided in the said advertisement .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... with the aid of several judgments of foreign courts, indian courts and the discussions and recommendations made by law commission interpreted scope and nature of the offences punishable under sections 121, 121-a, 122 and 123 of the indian penal code inter-alia. ..... the important issue that needs consideration is that whether the evidence available and the findings arrived on basis of that are sufficient to establish that the offences are punishable under sections 121, 121-a, 122 and 123 of the ranbir penal code?. ..... learned special public prosecutor and learned amicus curiae convicted all the seven accused persons for the offences punishable under section 121, 121-a, 122 and 123 of ranbir penal code and further for the offence punishable under section 14 of the foreigners act and section 25/7 of the arms act. ..... opinion, in view of the material available on record the accused appellants could have been convicted for an offence punishable under section 123 ranbir penal code, but not for the offences punishable under sections 121, 121-a and 122 ranbir penal code. ..... by the judgment impugned learned trial judge convicted the accused appellants for the offences punishable under sections 121, 121-a, 122, 123 ranbir penal code read with section 14 of the foreigners act and section 25 read with section ..... the first information report, at about 1350 hours, on 19.10.1997, the security personnels of india while patrolling on border spotted few suspicious persons in the forest area of village kachama. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... there cannot be any straight- jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided.57. ..... arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press this petition challenging the action of the trial court of taking cognizance agaisnt the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120b i.p.c. ..... preferred on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated 5.8.2013 whereby the judicial magistrate no.1, udaipur city (north), udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') has took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-b i.p.c. ..... the learned trial court after thoroughly discussing the material available on record took cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... there cannot be any straight- jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided.57. ..... arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press this petition challenging the action of the trial court of taking cognizance agaisnt the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120b i.p.c. ..... preferred on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated 5.8.2013 whereby the judicial magistrate no.1, udaipur city (north), udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') has took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-b i.p.c. ..... the learned trial court after thoroughly discussing the material available on record took cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur : order : s.b. civil writ petition no.3324/2005 natwar lal & ors. vs. shri prahlad singh & ors. date of order ::18. 11.2014 present hon'ble mr. justice arun bhansali mr. arpit bhoot, for the petitioner/s. mr. s.p. sharma, for the respondent/s. ---- by the court: this writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.10.2004 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking amendment in the plaint has been rejected. the facts in brief may be noticed thus : the petitioners filed a suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction against prahlad singh and dalpat singh regarding property known as 'shahji ka bagicha' situated at ward no.8, kuchaman city. it was inter-alia claimed that the western portion of the property was on rent with nobal senior secondary school, about 1/2 eastern portion is on rent with commercial taxes department and sheep & wool department and 1/2 southern portion was vacant which was in possession of gokul chand. it was claimed that venu gopal, power of attorney holder of gokul chand 2 executed sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs pertaining to the eastern portion of the property and the possession was handed- over to the plaintiffs. the commercial taxes department and sheep & wool department were informed about the transfer and they attorned to the plaintiffs and started paying rent to the plaintiffs. it was alleged that the respondent no.2 got .....
Tag this Judgment!