Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-13-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj1890
Guman Singh, J.1.In this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment dated November 11, 2002 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), No. I, Bharatpur whereby each of appellants Navlaram, Kapoor Chand, Amit Kumar @ Ummed, Baldev, Balveer and Dalveer were convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302/149 IPC,to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 307/147 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 325/149 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 148 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 323 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six mon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-19-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2444
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since a common point is involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. Whether a married woman, who belonged to a State other than the State of Rajasthan prior to her marriage and who was getting the benefit of reservation in that State, is entitled to get the benefit of reservation under the Mahila OBC or other reserved category for the purpose of getting employment in the State of Rajasthan, is the question which is raised in all these writ petitions. In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioners originally belonged to a State other than the State of Rajasthan before their marriage and after marriage, they are residing in the State of Rajasthan as husband of each of the petitioner is staying in Rajasthan. It is not in dispute that the husband of each of the petitioners belongs to OBC or other reserved category and by virtue of their marriage, the petitioners have put up their claim for getting reservation fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2195
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Like the Biblical story of David and Goliath, this is a case of an individual pitted against the colossal State. Having bought some properties at Pushkar, an ancient and a holy city in Rajasthan, the petitioner has been running a hotel in the name and style of 'Hotel Pushkar Palace' since 1981. There were certain legal battles fought between the petitioner and the Municipality Board ('the Board', for short), Pushkar-the respondent No. 3 before this Court. The Board lost these battles. The Board claims to have served a notice on the petitioner on 22.4.06 directing him to remove the illegal constructions/encroachments made by him, within three days. But notwithstanding the said notice, on 22.4.06 itself, the Board demolished a part of the hotel and sealed thirty-eight rooms of the hotel. When the petitioner protested against the illegal action of the Board, the Board issued yet another notice on 28.4.067 Stunned by the demolition, aggrieved by the notice dated 28.4.06,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-05-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ302
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 307 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of eight years with a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month.2. Factual matrix of the case are that one Smt. Ayodhya Bai submitted a written report on 1-12-1982 to the Police Station Kaithooni Police inter alia alleging therein that at about 7.30 PM on that date she along with her sister's daughter Vimla and son Kishan has gone to see the Dusshera Mela. When they reached near Shripura Bus Stand, Pradeep @ Pinku, the present petitioner, Chotya, Afzal and Assu approached them from behind. Chotya, Afzal and Assu caught hold of Kishan and accused appellant Pradeep caused to him injuries by knife which he had carried in his pocket. Kishan received three injuries on his person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-28-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(2)Raj1829
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the second and third part of the order as passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bhilwara on 21.09.2007 in Civil Suit No. 110/2005. 2. Briefly put, the relevant facts and aspects of the matter are that the petitioner is facing a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction as filed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in relation to the properties mentioned in paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the plaint (Annex.1). The plaintiffs have alleged their rights to the properties in question as being the descendants of Naval Ram and his adopted son Chauthmal; have alleged the agricultural land stated in paragraph 5 and 6 of the plaint having been given to the defendant No. 1-petitioner for cultivation on share basis and the defendant having taken possession of the residential property on request. While alleging defendant No. 1 having fraudulently got the land transferred in his name; ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-20-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj865
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the negligence on the part of the Doctors, who carried out the sterilization operation-onl4.2.2001 at a camp organized and supervised by the Surgeon of Family Welfare Center, Divisional Hospital, Gangapurcity, the respondent No. 2. The Doctors informed Smt. Uganti, petitioner No.2 that the operation was successful. But after the operation, Smt. Uganti became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 31.8.2002. Since the petitioner are poor, they did not want the fourth pregnancy. It was for the purpose of preventing the pregnancy, that Smt. Uganti had undergone the Sterlisation operation on 14.2.2001.2. It is further claimed by the petitioner that due to the negligence of the Doctors, she has suffered not only physical hardship, but also mental agony. She is also saddled with the responsibility of the fourth child. Therefore, she claims a compensation of Rs. 13,65,000/-from the respondents.3. Mr. Chetan Bairwa, the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-03-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2163
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Rajendra Sahu, an auto-rikshaw driver, did not know what the 'unborn next moment' held for him. While he was sitting on his auto-riksha at autostand, his assassin came in a Maruti car, called him near the car and opened fire at him. Injured Rajendra Sahu was removed to the Hospital where he breathed last. Sudhir Kumar Jain, appellant herein, along with co-accused Sahilendra Gautam, was indicted for having committed murder of Rajendra Sahu before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Kota, who vide judgment dated November 25, 2003, while acquitting co-accused, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 3/25 Arms Act:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The substantive sentences were ordered ...
Tag this Judgment!