Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Above mentioned two appeals have been preferred by 13 accused persons in all (12+1) against two judgments dated 13.3.2000 and 15.1.2002 passed in Sessions case Nos.3/1999 and 36/2001 respectively by the Court of Addl. District Judge No.1, Sikar, arising out of Ex.P/7written report lodged at P.S. Kotwali, Sikar on 12.9.1998 at 10.30 am for the incident allegedly occurred at 10.00 am on the same day in the business market place of Janki Nath Market where deceased Bhebharam's shop was situated. APPEAL NO.129/2000 2. Accused Jhabar Mal, Jagdish Prasad @ J.P., Mahendra, Bajrang Lal, Hari Ram, Raju @ Rajesh Kumar, Sharwan Kumar, Tara Chand, Mohan, Kishan Singh, Madan Lal & Rohitash Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar had been set up for trial in the first instance.3. Vide judgment dated 13.3.2000, the accused persons (appellants No.1 to 9 & 12) except accused Kishan Singh and Madan Lal (appellants No.10 & 11) had been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147,148, 302/149, 307/149, 326/14...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Counsel jointly submit that the petitioners have worked as Vidhyarthi Mitra in various government educational institutions, but after the policy of rationalization and equalization was introduced by the State Government, some were displaced from their places of posting and services of some of them were terminated since there was no post available where they were discharging their duties as Vidhyarthi Mitra. Counsel further submits that the controversy involved in the present petitions has been finally decided before the Main Seat at Jodhpur in Civil Writ Petition-8966/2009 (Prahlad Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors) decided on 22/07/2010 with the following observations:-2. In view of aforesaid, these writ petitions are also disposed of in view of earlier decision of this Court by Single Bench as well as Division Bench and aforesaid quoted decisions of the State Government vide letter dtd.4.6.2010 and 26.6.2010 and the respondents shall continue the contract of employment of p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Heard Mr.Tejas Barot, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.Shah, learned APP representing the respondent State.2. The present application is filed by the applicant u/s.439 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing him on regular bail in connection with C.R.No.II 3092 of 2010 registered with Godhra railway police station for the offences punishable u/ss.8(C), 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Mr.Barot, learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicants is innocent and he was falsely involved in this case. That the applicant is poor person and he was travelling for the purpose of getting labour work. It is further submitted that the similarly situated co-accused, namely, Mangilal Badiyabhai Bhuriya was released on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 25.2.2011 in Criminal Misc.Application No.1613 of 2011. It is submitted that as per the prosecution case about 44 Kgs. of Poppy Pod/Poppy Straw came to be sei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
ORAL 1. Matter has come upon misc. application (Inward-24680/dt.22/11/2010) filed by respondent-1 (Prakash Jhunjhunwala) in Company Appeal-1/2009 U/r 9 of Company (Court) Rules, 1959, assailing proceedings initiated by appellant Bank (secured creditor) regarding auction of immovable property (E-16, IPI Area, Electronics Complex, Kota) held on 22/09/2010; and seeking direction to the appellant-Bank to hold auction proceedings afresh in accordance with procedure under Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (Rules, 2002). It is a matter of record that appellant-Bank preferred company appeal U/s 10-F of Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Co. Act) against order dt.10/03/2009 of the Company Law Board and while admitting appeal, interim order was passed by Company Court on 24/07/2009 which was sought to be modified by appellant Bank by way of application, which was partly accepted vide order dt.15/04/2010 whereby liberty was granted to appellant Bank to dispose of immovable assets in its posses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Matter has come upon misc. application (Inward-24680/dt.22/11/2010) filed by respondent-1 (Prakash Jhunjhunwala) in Company Appeal-1/2009 U/r 9 of Company (Court) Rules, 1959, assailing proceedings initiated by appellant Bank (secured creditor) regarding auction of immovable property (E-16, IPI Area, Electronics Complex, Kota) held on 22/09/2010; and seeking direction to the appellant-Bank to hold auction proceedings afresh in accordance with procedure under Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (Rules, 2002). It is a matter of record that appellant-Bank preferred company appeal U/s 10-F of Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Co. Act) against order dt.10/03/2009 of the Company Law Board and while admitting appeal, interim order was passed by Company Court on 24/07/2009 which was sought to be modified by appellant Bank by way of application, which was partly accepted vide order dt.15/04/2010 whereby liberty was granted to appellant Bank to dispose of immovable assets in its possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
ORAL ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move fresh bail application before trial court, in view of the fact that statements of some of the prosecution witnesses had been recorded after rejection of bail application by the trial on 17.08.2009.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there are total 22 prosecution witnesses as per list of witnesses and out of them only eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution till 27.08.2010 and thereafter prosecution witnesses are not coming for deposing their statements, therefore, no statement could be recorded in last more than five months.4. He further submitted that P.W. 7 Kalulal, one of the eye witness, has stated that the petitioner Ram Kalyan was having sword and he inflicted injury on the person of deceased Nand Bihari by sword, whereas from the statement of P.W. 3 Dr....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order passed by respondents dated 13.01.1995 by which her husband Ramesh Chand Bhatt was dismissed from services in disciplinary proceedings initiated on basis of charge-sheet issued to him for willful absence from duties. Petitioner's husband Ramesh Chand Bhatt was placed under suspension by order dated 10.11.1987 and thereafter a criminal case was registered against him on 09.06.1987 for offence under Section 420 IPC vide FIR No.219/1987. According to respondents, Shri Ramesh Chand Bhatt last attended his duties with their office on 02.03.1988 and thereafter his whereabouts could not be known. In those facts when service of charge-sheet could not be affected on him, a notice was published in daily Hindi newspaper 'Dainik Navjyoti' (Ajmer edition) on 22.09.1994 clearly giving out that he should report on duties within fifteen days failing which ex-parte proceedings envisaged under Rule 19 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Aggrieved by the award dated 12.2.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Kotputli, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of paying the compensation amount of Rs.3,69,500/-, the appellants-claimants have approached this Court. Shortly, the facts of the case are that according to the appellants, Santosh Kumar was riding a scooter. When he reached Handi Ka Bas Tan Macha, the scooter collided with a person who was going ahead. Consequently, Santosh Kumar fell from the scooter and sustained grievous injuries. Subsequently, he died. Deprived of the bread earner of the family, the appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The respondents filed their written statements and denied the averments made in the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. 2. It recorded the evidence adduced by the parties. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Company appeal U/s 10-F of Indian Companies Act, 1956 ("Co. Act") is directed against order dt.27/10/2008 passed by the Company Law Board New Delhi rejecting Company Petition-36/2006 filed by appellant making allegations of certain oppression and mismanagement on the part of respondent-1 (M/s RR Consortium (P) Ltd) being covered U/s 397 & 398 of Co. Act. Appellant filed petition U/Ss 397, 398, 402 & 403 of Co. Act against respondent-1 Company & its Directors making allegations of certain oppressions & mismanagement on their part. 2. As per material on record, respondent-1 (Company) was incorporated in the year 1996 with authorized share capital of Rs.Five lacs divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each, which was increased to Rs.25 lacs in June, 1996 and further increased to Rs.50 lacs in March, 1997. Respondent-1 Company was established with the objects to purchase, acquire, convert, develop, improve, hold with absolute or limited rights or on lease, sub-lease or otherwise a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction ("BIFR") in exercise of its powers U/s 20(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ("Act, 1985") after holding inquiry U/s 16, and taking note of all relevant facts & circumstances on record, and after opportunity of hearing being afforded to all the concerned parties, on having come to its conclusion vide order dt. 26/09/2002 in Case No.3/1999 that M/s Jaipur Metal & Electrical Ltd ("JMEL") is not likely to make its net worth exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable time while meeting all its financial obligations - as a result therefore, is not likely to become viable in future, has forwarded its opinion to the Company Court vide its letter dt.03/10/2002 and recommended that Company-JMEL be wound up.2. At the stage of admission where recommendations made by BIFR are to be examined for winding up of company-JMEL, two applications (No.6780/dt.15/03/2010) by M/s Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd & (No. 17945/...
Tag this Judgment!