Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ748
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Can the court depend solely on the probity of investigation? Can criminal justice be made casualty for the wrongs committed by Investigating Officer? These are the pivotal questions springing up for consideration in the instant appeals, which have been preferred against the judgment dated December 13, 2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3 Bharatpur Camp Bayana by Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore, Susya @ Lokesh and Kalua @ Koshal Kishore, who were convicted and sentenced as under:Susya @ Lokesh:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore and Kalua @ Koshal Kishore:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The prosecution story is woven like this: On September 17, 1999 around 6.45 PM informant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3593
ORDERNarendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Admit. Mr. Banwari Sharma, advocate appears for respondents.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The sole plaintiff Mithan Lal filed a suit for ejecment in respect of disputed property against defendant petitioner on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of himself and default in making the payment of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff Mithan Lal died and thereafter his legal representatives were substituted in his place. The legal representatives moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint pleading the bonafide necessity of Smt. Saraswati Devi, widow of Mithan Lal, of the disputed premise. The application was contested by the defendant. The trial court vide its order dated 30th October, 2007 allowed the application. Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the defendant petitioner.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that earlie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj216
Shanker Asopa, J.1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these two writ petitions, therefore, both have been clubbed, heard and are being decided together.2. By S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3134/2006, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.4.2006 (Anx. 11) by which the respondent No. 2 has disqualified the petitioner from participating in the financial bid. The petitioner company has prayed for production of the entire record of the said Bid and notice for invitation of bid for High Security Registration Plates (in short 'HSRP') and quashing of the said order dated 10.4.2006 with the further prayer that the direction be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner company as qualified and simultaneously allow it to take part in further process of tender. The petitioner company has also prayed that the respondents be restrained from proceeding further in the tender process by awarding the contract to any other party and issuing the Letter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj424
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Since all the petitions involve identical issues, hence are being disposed of together.2. Question arising for consideration is as to whether persons holding qualification of Sr. Secondary (Vocation) from recognized Board of Education can be considered to be ineligible in absence of holding Bridge Course certificate for the purpose of their appointment of Primary/Upper Primary School Teachers after amendment being made in R. 266(3) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, vide notification dt. 28.06.2006.3. Necessary facts relevant for adjudication being almost common, are being taken note of CWP-7024/2007. Advertisement was issued by Rajasthan Public Service Commission ('PSC' on 30.10.2006 inviting application for appointment of Primary and Upper Primary Teachers. Petitioner (Radhe Shyam Raidas) qualified Senior Secondary (Vocational), B.A., M.A. & Diploma in Education (two years) Course from Bhopal (MP) as alleged to be equivalent to BSTC duly recognized by Rajasth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj246
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the order Annx. 6 dated 9.4.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 the Additional, District Judge No. 3, Udaipur (for short, 'the Appellate Court' hereinafter) to the extent of dismissing the application Annx. 3 filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been challenged.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that respondent No. 1, the plaintiff, filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Old Act' hereinafter) for eviction of the suit premises i.e. shop No. 13 situated at Ashwini Market, Udaipur and arrears of rent. The eviction was sought on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the respondent- plaintiff, the landlord. The petitioner-defendant, the tenant, contested the suit and ultimately the suit came to be decreed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj140
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dtd. 26.5.2008 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the defendant filed under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the C.P.C. seeking to produce on record certain additional documents in an eviction matter.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for seeking eviction of the suit shop in question on the ground of personal and bonafide necessary of the landlord. After the evidence of the plaintiff-defendant was complete on 17.11.2006 and the case was fixed for final arguments on 8.12.2006 after taking several opportunities for arguing the case, the defendant filed the aforesaid application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the C.P.C. and the said defendant wanted to produce the documents viz. application for registration under the Sales Tax Law by one M/s. Arihant Metals, proprietorship concern of father of the plaintiff, which was purportedly signed as Manager by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2009]148CompCas884(Raj)
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Modern Denim Ltd., (in short 'the petitioner-company') has filed this petition under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1956') for sanctioning the scheme of compromise between the petitioner-company and its secured creditors.2. The petitioner-company was incorporated as Modern Suitings P. Ltd., in November, 1977, as a part of Modern group of companies. As a part of an exercise to restructure its activity the Modern Suitings Ltd. spun off its suiting division to Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. in April, 1993 under the scheme of arrangement approved by this court. The name of Modern Suitings Ltd., thereafter was changed to the present name, i.e., Modern Denim Ltd. (in short 'MDL').3. The petitioner-company till 1997 was earning profits and its operations were profitable. From the year 1998 the operations of the petitioner-company suffered losses on account of worldwide recession and excess supply scenario in denim in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3670
Chand Mal Totla, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) in Sessions case No. 42/1992 (91/1989). There was a cross case and that was Sessions Case No. 54/1992 (34/1990) wherein the accused persons, members of the complainant party in the present case, were convicted by the same Court i.e. Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) by judgment and order dated 15.11.2000. The appeal against cross case being SB. Criminal Appeal No. 682/2000 is also being decided today by separate judgment.3. In Village Dassusar in town Simsiya, agriculture land bearing khasra Nos. 229, 357 and 30 total measuring 78 bighas 10 biswas was the agricultural land of one Moola Ram. Mst. Seu Devi @ Mst. Sua Devi is wife of Moola Ram. Moola Ram and Seu Devi had no issue. Moola Ram had two brothers Kalu Ram and Chela Ram. Kalu ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj62
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, working on the post of Assistant (C) with the respondent National Insurance Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent Company'] and having been transferred from Divisional Office, Jodhpur to Branch Office, Balotara, has challenged the transfer order dated 18.08.2006 (Annex.7) as being violative of statutory requirements.2. Put in a nut-shell, the contentions of the petitioner are that a part of Transfer Policy as framed, and the consequential Administrative Instructions as issued by the respondent Company are not in conformity with the statutory Scheme related with such transfers; and that his transfer order has been issued by an officer who could not have been and has not been authorised to do so; and further that the transfer order has been issued even contrary to the terms of the Transfer Policy.3. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he was appointed by the respondent Compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3681
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the plaintiff-petitioner seeks to question the order dated 08.12.2007 (Annex.12) as passed by the learned Trial Court allowing an application for amendment of the written statement as moved by the defendants-respondents. The plaintiff-petitioner essentially contends that the amendment operates to his prejudice in taking away an accrued right; and that the amendment could not have been allowed after the trial had commenced.2. The background facts and relevant aspects of the matter are that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed the suit [C.O. No. 20/2003 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Jodhpur] for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendants-respondents in relation to a shop situated outside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur with the averments in the plaint (Annex.13), inter alia, that the shop in question is of his ownership and had earlier been of the ownership of his aunt Dr. Parvati Gehlot; that...
Tag this Judgment!