Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-22-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1021
deo narayan thanvi, j.1. by the instant appeal, the accused appellants have challenged the legality of the conviction and sentences recorded against them for the offences under sections 302 and 498a ipc by the learned addl. sessions judge, sangaria, district hanumangarh, vide his judgment dated 23.7.03 delivered in sessions case no. 6/2002. for the offence under section 302 ipc, all the three accused appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of rs. 1000/- each and in default, to further undergo six months' imprisonment, whereas under section 498a ipc, they were sentenced to three years' s.i. alongwith a fine of rs. 1000/- each and in default, to further undergo s.i. for two months. both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. the prosecution story in brief is that on 19.11.2001 at 5.15 pm, dr. sushila choudhary, s.m.o., govt. hospital, sangaria informed to mahendra dutt, sub inspector; police station, sangaria that one lady smt. kamlesh w/o subhash (accused), who consumed spray, was admitted in the hospital, therefore,.necessary action should be taken. upon this, he went at the hospital and recorded the statement of smt. kamlesh in which she stated that she married three years back with subhash son of sri ram. she was harassed by her husband and in-law for dowry and they demanded rs. 50,000/-. her husband caught hold of her mouth and mother-in-law bhagwati, father-in-law sri ram and sister-in-law manju forcibly administered .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-24-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2298; RLW2009(3)Raj2117
orderraghuvendra s. rathore, j.1. this criminal misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 14-12-1989 passed by the learned additional chief judicial magistrate, no. 1, alwar, whereby he had rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the final report, submitted by the investigation agency in f.i.r. no. 24/1985. being aggrieved of the said order, the complainant-petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same came to be dismissed by the learned additional sessions judge, no. 2, alwar on 2-7-1998.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner had lodged a report on 17-2-1985, at police station malkhera, district alwar, for the offences under sections 120-b, 416, 467, 468 and 420, i.p.c. after registration of the report, the police investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that no offence was made out and, as such, they submitted a final report before the concerning court. the petitioner-complainant then filed a protest petition before the learned magistrate. thereafter, the statement of the petitioner and his witnesses were recorded. the learned trial court, by the order impugned dated 14-10-1989, dismissed the protest petition and accepted the final report submitted by the investigation agency. the protest petition was dismissed on the ground that since the petitioner had filed a civil suit and accused persons were party in the said suit, it is the civil court alone which was competent for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-08-2008
Reported in : AIR2008Raj131; RLW2008(3)Raj2345
orderjitendra ray goyal, j.1. cross objection under order 41 rule 22 of the code of civil procedure (in short the 'code') has been filed by shri jitendra singh, legal representative of deceased plaintiff-respondent no. 1 smt. mahendra kumari, in first appeal filed by the appellant-defendant no. 2 the east india hotels ltd. against the judgment and decree dated 30/11/2005 passed by additional district judge (fast track) no. 4, jaipur city, jaipur in civil suit no. 243/2003 (old no. 43/1986) whereby the suit of partition, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction was partly decreed but the trial court dismissed the plaintiff' suit in so far as she claimed preferential right under section 22 of the hindu succession act, 1955. this part of the decree was assailed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 by way of filing this cross objection. an application under order 41 rule 22 of the code read with section 5 of the limitation act was also filed for condonation of delay and extension of time to file the cross objection.2. heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay and extension of time for filing the cross objection.3. learned counsel appearing for the respondent-objector submitted that according to the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of rule 22 of order 41 of the code the period of limitation for filing the cross objection starts from the date of service of the notice on the respondent or his pleader of the day fixed for hearing of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-21-2008
Reported in : (2008)220CTR(Raj)369
order1. this appeal by the revenue, seeks to challenge the order of the tribunal, dt. 24th june, 2005, whereby the appeal of the assessee was allowed.2. the appeal was admitted on 4th aug., 2006, by formulating two substantial questions of law, which read as under:(1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal is justified in setting aside the assessment order, ignoring the provisions of section 147 of the it act, 1961 the ao validly issued notice under section 148 of the act?(2) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal is justified in allowing the exemption under section 11(i)(d) of the it act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the objects of the trust providing benefit to maheshwari community was hit by the provisions contained in clause (i) of section 13 in view of the decision in ghulam mohidin trust v. cit (2001) 168 ctr (j&k;) 367 : (2001) 248 itr 587 , which is squarely applicable in this case?.3. the necessary facts are, that the assessee is a charitable trust, which came into existence on 17th oct., 1995, and was granted registration by registrar of societies on the same day. the registration under section 12aa was granted to the trust on 14th aug., 1997. the return of income, for the year under consideration (financial year 1997-98), corresponding to asst. yr. 1998-99, was filed on 31st march, 2000, declaring nil income. the return was duly accompanied, with the audit report in form no. 10b and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-21-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Raj36
orderprakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the appellants are aggrieved against the impugned order dated 26-4-2005 by which the first appellate court - court of the additional district judge, ratangarh (churu) dismissed the appeal of the appellants as abated due to the death of defendant/respondent dal chand as in regular first appeal, the plaintiff/appellant did not choose to file any application for bringing on record the legal representatives of dal chand.3. brief facts of the case are that one of the defendants khetu lal took loan from another defendant revat mal. said revat mal filed a suit for recovery of the money which was decreed by the trial court as back as on 20-10-1965. said revat mal submitted execution petition no. 46/67 for recovery of the said decretal amount of rs. 609/- only and in the said execution, the house of judgment debtor khetu mal was auctioned for a consideration of rs. 9,775/-. the reserve price was rs. 5,000/- only. after the said auction, the present appellants - sons of judgment debtor khetu mal filed a suit for declaration that the suit property was ancestral property of khetu mal and, therefore, he could not have mortgaged it to another creditor dal chand. they also sought relief for cancellation of the mortgage deed executed in favour of dal chand. it may be relevant to mention here that dal chand also obtained the decree on 26-1-1971 for the house in question and the final decree was passed in favour of dal chand. in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-25-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)WLN445
prakash tatia, j.1. s.b. civil revision petition no. 67/2007 and s.b.civil second appeal no. 103/2007, both were heard together because of involvement of common questions of facts and laws, in view of the request of learned counsel for both the parties.2. s.b. civil revision petition no. 67/2007 has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 27.02.2007 passed by the learned civil judge (sr.div.), jodhpur in execution case no. 60/2003 (67/2006) - kanti lal v. l.rs. of chand kumari, whereby the petitioner's objection against the execution of the decree, passed in favour of respondent and against petitioner's mother for eviction in suit no. 52/72, has been dismissed and warrant of possession was issued.3. same narendra kumar also submitted an application under order 21 rule 97, c.p.c. in the same execution of decree passed in civil original suit no. 52/72 raising objection against the execution of the same decree.4. the petitioner narendra kumar's objections under order 21 rule 97, c.p.c. were registered as s.b. civil misc. case no. 27b/05 (1/05) and after hearing the parties, the petitioner's application under order 21 rule 97, c.p.c. was dismissed by the trial court vide order dt. 29.01.2007. the petitioner's execution first appeal no. 12/07 challenging the executing court's order dt. 29.01.2007 was dismissed by the court of addl. district judge no. 1, jodhpur vide order/judgment dt. 16.03.2007. to challenge above two orders, the petitioner has preferred s.b.civil .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-13-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ2492
r.c. gandhi, j.1. this appeal has been preferred against the award dated 14.12.2007 passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal, jaipur district, jaipur in a claim petition no. 221 of 2007 whereby a sum of rs. 4,69,000 has been paid as compensation on account of death of 29 years old person, leaving behind the claimants, in a road accident on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed of a valid licence.2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. the accident took place on 29.5.2005 while deceased shankar lai and chhitarmal were going to their village from dausa in a jeep no. rj 14-t 5629 and when they reached near village zirota khurd at about 11.45 a.m. met with an accident caused due to negligence of the driver of maruti van no. rj 29-t 100. claim petition was filed which was contested by the other side. on appreciation of evidence impugned award has been passed.4. that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle under the motor vehicles act as the driver was carrying the passengers in the offending vehicle. learned counsel for the respondents, in rebuttal, has submitted that the weight of maruti van (offending vehicle) is 785 kg which comes within the category of light motor vehicle and thus, the driver was having a valid licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident.5. the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2330
shiv kumar sharma, j.1. this is an application under section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (for short 'act') for appointment of independent arbitrator.2. the arbitration agreement relied upon in this application is with reference to memorandum of understanding (for short 'mou') dated january 31, 2005 and the collaboration agreement dated march 9, 2005 entered into between the parties. under the mou dated january 31, 2005 entered into between the respondent harsh rathore, referred to as 'the first party' in the mou and the applicant m/s. jagdambey builders pvt. ltd., referred to as 'the builder company' in the mou. it was agreed that the respondent harsh rathore on the terms and conditions agreed upon would hand over/surrender his land admeasuring 7913 sq. yds. bearing plot no. 6, forming part of khasra no. 50, situated at sodala civil lines, jaipur, popularly known as 'rathore nursery' to the applicant for developing and constructing a commercial complex and that the entire cost for construction of the complex including all incidental expenses would be to the account of applicant and on construction so made 50% of the constructed/built up area would vest in the respondent and remaining 50% of constructed/built up area would belong to and vest in the applicant. an amount of rs. 4.5 crores was agreed to be paid by the applicant to respondent out of which 2.25 crores was non refundable and remaining 2.25 crores was refundable on completion of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-23-2008
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR43]; RLW2008(4)Raj3342
gopal krishan vyas, j.1. this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for granting regular pay scale of the post of pump driver from the date of initial appointment or at least from the date of reinstatement in pursuance of award dated 20/2/1996 and further prayed for regularization of his services on the post of pump driver.2. according to facts of the case, petitioner was initially appointed as pump driver @ rs. 25/- per day by the principal, doongar college, bikaner on 14/9/1988.the services of petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 1.7.1990 and against his termination, petitioner raised industrial dispute and after reference by the appropriate government in pursuance of failure report sent by conciliation officer, the matter was finally adjudicated by the judge, labour court, bikaner and an award dated 20/2/1996 was passed, whereby, retrenchment of petitioner w.e.f. july, 1990 was set aside and he was held entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages from the date of award. against the award dated 20/2/1996 passed by labour court, bikaner, a writ petition was filed by the respondent employer under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india which was registered as s.b. civil writ petition no. 3357/97, however, the said writ petition was dismissed by this court holding that there is no error apparent in the award which called for any interference by the court.3. during the pendency of the said writ petition, an application under section 17b .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj967; 2009(1)WLN192
vineet kothari, j.1. by this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing his reversion order dated 2/9/1996 and has sought further direction to the respondents to treat him regularised on the post of lecturer (school education) in mathematics, the post on which he has been working for last 16 years since 1980 when this writ petition was filed in the year 1996.2. by the impugned order annex. 1 dated 2/9/2996 the petitioner was reverted back to the post of gr. ii teacher. the petitioner was appointed under rule 27 of the rajasthan education (subordinate service) rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules, 1971') on the post of lecturer (school education) vide order dated 24/9/1980, annex.5 on record. the said appointment though initially made on ad hoc and temporary basis on the condition that same will continue for a period of one year or till the point of time when the regularly selected candidates from departmental promotion committee or public service commission are available to be appointed against the said post. the said appointment was extended from time to time vide annex.7 dated 18/11/1982 and annex.8 dated 9/1/1984. the petitioner has also submitted that vide order dated 20/5/2000 (annex.9) though certain candidates like mr. bhramdutt kurmi mohan lal sharma and bheru lal mall etc. were available either through psc or dpc in the year 1984-85 and 1988-89, since petitioner was continuing on the post of lecturer (school education) throughout upto the year 1996, .....Tag this Judgment!