Rajasthan Court August 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Yashoda Kumari and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC97
S.N. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 9-2-1972 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur rejecting the claim petition of the appellants.2. The accident took place on 26-9-1968 at a distance of 61/2 miles from Jaipur on Jaipur-Ajmer road when roadways bus RJL 696 3 and a private bus DLP 3487 collided against each other. The driver of private bus was killed and some passengers in the roadways bus also died, while some were injured. The private bus was insured with the Life Insurance Corporation of India.3. Three claim petitions were filed, which were disposed of by the impugned order dated 9-2-1972. The appellants had preferred the claim, which was registered as claim No. 50 of 1968. Pritam Singh who was driving private bus DLP 3487 had died during the accident and the present appellants who were the legal representatives of the deceased Pritam Singh filed the claim for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- against the Raj...
Abdul Rashid and anr., Etc. Vs. Ram Dayal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj30
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Both these appeals relate to an accident which took place on 9th Dec., 1972 at about 12.30 p.m. While Ram Dayal, the respondent, was coming from the side of the General Hospital, Bundi and wasproceeding to the Collectorate Building, he was knocked down by the truck No. HRR 3077 which was being driven by Abdul Rafiq.2. It was alleged that Abdul Rafiq was driving the truck No. HRR 3077 rashly and negligently. The claim was contested and the issues were framed. After recording of the evidence, the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. However, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,635.00/- as compensation in favour of Ram Dayal for the injuries sustained by him on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver Abdul Rafiq who also died in this accident.3. S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 154/76 by M/s. Vanguard Insurance Company Limited, now merged with the New India Assurance Company Limited, and S. B. Civil Misc....
Mahavir Singh Vs. Union of Indai (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)291
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The petitioner's case in short is that he was working on the post of Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force at Anand, where he fell sick on March 23, 1974 He reported back on duty on May 7, 1974 but he again fell ill on May 9, 1974 and he went for private medical treatment. The petitioner resumed his duties on September 11, 1974. A complaint was pled by the Assistant Security Officer against the petitioner under Section 17(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, alleging that he remained absent from duty from May 9, 1974 without any reasonable excuse and that he willfully disobeyed the lawful orders of his superiors. The Magistrate, First Class Anand, found the petitioner guilty by his order dated November 13, 1975 of remaining absent without reasonable cause and of willfully disobeying the orders of his superiors. He was, however, allowed the benefit of Section 3 of I the Probation of Offenders Act and was ordered to be released after admonition. Soon ...
inder Lal Vs. Narendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN750
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Amputation of leg to the pathetic extent of making common passage for urine and passing of stool, is the climax of this tragic accident which is worst than a Fatal Accident. The worst irony of fate is that it happened with a young boy of six years of age, who could not physically die becaused he survived, but mentally is destined to face death every moment in this inhuman, pathetic, tragic life.2. This litigation has also now become 14 years old and the boy of 6 now 2, due to delay in disposal of claim cases, must have remained under legal suspense and litigation coma, adding insult to injury. The pity is that even then this is only half way of litigation so far, and future is all uncertain.3. This unfortunate boy of six years of age met an accident on 31-10-1970 while crossing tie Jaipur-Malpura road at the bus stand at village Renewal by truck No. RRL 4667, which has alleged to be coming with a fast speed from Jaipur side and was going towards Malpura. The boy was cr...
Jagdish NaraIn Vs. Shyam Sunder and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN765
D.L. Mehta, J.1. An amount of Rs. 32,000/- plus an amount of interest was due against the non-petitioner, Om Prakash and his brothers. It is an admitted position that on 1st August, 1982, no transaction has taken place. Neither any article was sold to the non-petitioners on credit, nor any property was received by the present non-petitioners on 1st August, 1982. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 1st August, 1982, he came to Gangapur City to purchase some goods from other parties. The petitioner's bank and creditors were not in know of the fact that the petitioner has come to purchase the goods from other party. So they contacted him in Gangapur City and demanded the amount due from him. The further allegation is that Om Prakash, non-petitioner, issued a cheque for Rs. 5000/- towards the outstanding amount in favour of the petitioner. The cheque was dishonoured by the Bank.2. The contention of the petitioner is that no amount was in the account of the non-petitioner. Om P...
Hukam Chand Yadav Vs. Prem NaraIn and anr. and
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC251
Guman Mal Lodha, J. 1. These two appeals No. 192/1974 and 183/1974 arises out of the judgment of accident claims Tribunal, Jaipur dated 23rd July, 1974. Truck No. HRG 6047 was being run at a high speed by Chet Ram Gujar, struck Kailash Chand and Mohan Lal who died as a result of this accident. The tribunal in it's award allowed Rs. 24,000/- as compensation to the petitioners Suraj Mal, Smt. Kasturi Devi and Manju for the death of Mohan Lal and fixed the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- in claim petition No. 27/72, In claim petition 20/72 for the death of Kailash Narain it allowed the compensation of Rs. 24,000/- and fixed the liability of Insurance Company to Rs. 10,000.2. The owner of the vehicle has filed appeal and he has prayed that the award required to be set aside as it was time barred and in any case the Insurance Company should idemnify owner to the full extent. It is not necessary to mention facts because the only ground ultimately pressed is t...
Firm Jethmal Vs. Ram Nath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN626
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal who won its money suit in the trial court but lost it in the first appellate court of District Judge, Bikaner.2. The case set up by the plaintiff, though simple, is of unusual nature and gives an interesting reading. As per averments disclosed in the plaint, defendant Ramnath (who passed away during the pendency of this appeal and whose legal representatives have been substituted in his place) obtained a money decree being No. 2 of 1956 against Ram Niwas on June 6, 1957. In execution of that decree, Ram Niwas get attached and sold a shop described in para 9 of the plaint situate is the city of Bikaner. In the auction conducted by the Executing Court it was purchased by the plaintiff firm on July 15, (sic) 59 for a sum of Rs. 3601/- The sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued to the plaintiff on September 9, 1959. The possession of the shop was also delivered to the plaintiff on October 22, 1959 and since then he continued to be in...
Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chaturbhuj Radhakishan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR257(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the opinion to this court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order passed by the ITO was really an order under Section 185(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and, as such, the appeal was maintainable before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?'2. The facts which have given rise to this reference briefly are : The assessee, M/s. Chaturbhuj Radhakishan Binote (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), filed a return of its income in the status of a registered firm. The assessee also filed on October 23, 1967, an application for registration along with a partnership deed. The relevant accounting period of the assessee ended on May 11, 1967. As such the application for registration was submitte...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanraj Gupta and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas665(Raj)
Guman Mal Lodha, J. 1. A short but sure point raised by Shri Rajendra Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellant, relates to the liability of the insurance company when the Tribunal has exonerated the insured.2. The submission is based on the provisions of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which reads as under :'96. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks.-- (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 95 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 95 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this sectio...
Ramdhan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)456
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This appeal by the accused Ramdhan is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated Febrary 17, 1982, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and to a sentence of imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case in brief is that in the night intervening 19th-20th April, 1981, Suja Ram PW 3 'TAU' (father's elder brother) of accused Ram Dhan heard the cries of Mst. Kailashi (deceased) wife of the accused. On hearing the cries Suja went to the threshing floor of accused Ramdhan where the cot of the accused was lying. When Suja raised an alarm, Ramdhan ran away and his wife Kailashi was lying on the cot in a pool of blood and had died by that time. An FIR of the incident was lodged by Suja vide Ex. P 3 at 3 P.M. at Police Station Jamuva Ramgarh mentioning the above fact and it was also mentioned in the report that the accused Ramdhan had run away after killing his wif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »