Rajasthan Court September 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.
Daudayal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN779
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The short question which arises in this appeal is as to whether the appeal filed by the appellant Daudayal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal was time barred and the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 3, M/s Garg Transport Company on this ground alone.2. The facts which are not in dispute are that both the appellant and respondent Orde 1, M/s Garg Transport Company, filed applications for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits on Bharatpur-Dholpur viz Roopbas, Badi-Desori-Jogaar route (hereinafter called 'the route'). The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur considered all the applications for grant of permits on the route in its meeting held from January 6 to January 8, 1966 but the matter could not be decided in that meeting as same information was sought from the Director of Transport, Rajasthan. After the receipt of the information, the matter was further heard by the Regional Transport Authority...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harbhajan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1984
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)681
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. I would not allow victims of Motors Accidents to again become victims of judicial accidents. In the first, the negligence is of the Driver and second would be due to negligence of the Bar or uncertainty of the Judge made law, i.e. Bench. Let the Judiciary step in and make up to endure and heal up the wounds of accidents; which the God refused to cure, by liberal interpretation in favour of victims.2. In this Golden Era of 'SOCIAL JUSTICE' new judicial innovations should be carved out by Judiciary more so when the litigation is about getting relief and the law to be interpreted is 'Social Welfare Legislation' aimed to provide social security, and technicalities should give way to substantial and real justice.3. The above is the 'Motto' of this judgment for guidance of Tribunals'. Now the traditional facts.4. This appeal along with cross-objection filed by the claimants has been filed against the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur.5. The judg...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jogendra Pal Bhatia and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)417
V.S. Dave, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, dated December 15, 1982, whereby the appeal filed by the non-petitioner was allowed.2. The short question involved in this case is as to whether the confirmation of the respondent in his appointment as Executive Engineer could be done when he was facing departmental enquiry. The respondent was promoted to the post of executive engineer on ad hoc basis on October 3, 1969 and was regularly selected on June 10, 1974. His confirmation orders had not been issued and his grievance precisely was that a departmental enquiry under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to a 'the Rules of 1958'), was pending against him and that has been shown to be cause of not confirming him. The said enquiry was in consequence of a charge-sheet given to him in relation to some irregularities in construction of Khora Bundh in District Alwar ...
Tejpal Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation and Mu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC145
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Tej Pal Singh, the claimant, who was aged 16 years at the time of filing of the ciaim petition, has filed this appeal against the rejection of his claim by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bbaratpur, on the ground that it has not been proved that the accident took place on account of the fault or negligence or rashness of the bus driver-Mullan, who was driving the Corporation's bus No. RJA 3601. The accident, as alleged, took place on 17th January, 1976 at 10.15 a.m. while the claimant-Tejpal Singh on his cycle was going to his village Peerka (Nagar) via Bharatpur-Khakawali (Nagar). While he reached near Khakawali which is 4 miles away from Nagar; Bus No. RJA 3601 which is owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, came with a fast speed from behind him and struck the claimant, as result of which right leg of the claimant was seriously crushed by the bus.2. Before this Court, there is no dispute and it is common ground that, Tejpal Singh, the appe...
Raj. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vidhya Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC17
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These two cross appeals have been filed by the R.S.R.T.C. and Smt. Vidhya Sharma, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 17-12-1980.2. One Kailash Sharma, now deceased was milk seller. On 3rd September, 1978, at 4.00 a.m. Kailash Sharma, with Suresh and Narendra wanted to go to Jaipur from Village Gidani. They stood in the Katcha' near the road and gave signal to bus No. RSM 961 to stop and pick them up. The bus driver was driving the vehicle rashly and he struck Kailash on account of which he died on the spot. The bus was being driven by Damodar Prasad.3. The defence of the Corporation is that the accident happened due to negligence of Kailash Sharma. Near Gidani, stand 5 and 6 persons were standing. When the bus came nearer they came on road and raised their hands to stop the bus when the bus did not stop then they started running hither and thither and 4 to 5 persons ran away on the left side and one on the right side which was wrong side. Thi...
R.S.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC464
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a hopeless appeal filed by the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Mahesh Kumar a young boy of 19 years student of Commerce College, was going on a motor cycle when bus No. R.S.M. 5862 came with excessive speed having iron angle on the roof. Pukh Raj, who was driving the motor-cycle took the motor cycle on left side and stopped it apprehending trouble. It was night the bus driver did not use even dipper and iron angle were not visible. The iron angles struck the eye of the claimant due to which he lost left eye and also received some injuries.2. Mr. L.M. Jain, contested the finding of the tribunal and argued that iron angle was not on the bus.3. This argument of Mr. Jain, is wholly tenable as PW 1, Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, Pukh Raj and PW 3 Hastan Singh and others have proved it.4. The FIR and site inspection note Ex. P. 14, provides clinching evidence that iron angle was hanging from the bus and the bus...
Navratan Singh Vs. Chandidan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj219; 1985(1)WLN26
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks to quash the order dated April 16, 1983 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilara, whereby the objection of the petitioner as to the invalidity of the presentation of the election petition was overruled.2. I may state the few relevant facts. Inconnection with the re-constitution of the Gram Panchayat, Bbrunda of the Panchayat Samiti, Bilara, the elections were held on December 14, 1981. The petitioner Navratan Singh and the respondent No. 1 Chandidan contested the election for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner was declared elected. The respondent No. 1 questioned the election of the petitioner by presenting the election petition on January 13, 1982. The election petition was presented to the Reader of the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, Bilara. Shri Baldeopuri Goswami, Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bilara on account of his transfer had handed over the charge on January 11, 1982...
Secretary, Uit Vs. Karamchari Sangh, Uit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN661
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner is not an 'industry' and as such the question as to whether the termination of the services of the concerned employees amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') did not arise. The question as to whether the Urban Improvement Trust as a whole or any branch or unit thereof was not an industry was not raised by the appellant before the Industrial Tribunal but the parties went to trial before the Industrial Tribunal on merits and after considering the material placed before it the Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Rajasthan, Jaipur passed an Award on December 3, 1975 holding that the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with, while terminating the services of the concerned workman, which amounted to retrenchment. Before the learned Single Judge, the question that the U...
Kumari Shikha Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)394
M.C. Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By this writ petition the petitions seeks a direction from this Court to non-petitioner No. 2 to admit her in the Engineering Course in general category.3. The petitioner undertook the pre Engineering Test 1984 (here in after referred to as 'the PET') and thereafter she was called for interview and she was offered admission in B Sc. Ag Engineering at Udaipur. According to the petitioner her father represented to the Centralised Admission Committee that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for admission in general category according to her merit. This request, made on behalf of the petitioner, was not acceded to. The petitioner's case is that she was eligible under Clause 2 (b)(1)(vi) of the Instructions for Admission to First B.E Degree Course for the Session 1984-85. According to the petitioner even less meritorious candidates have been given admission in Mechanical. Electrical and Civil Engineering and the number of such...
Kanhiyalal Rameshwar Das Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR463(Raj)
Sidhu, J.1. On an application made by the assessee under Section 256(1), Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter called 'the Act'), the Appellate Tribunal made a reference to this court inviting our opinion on three questions of law framed by the Appellate Tribunal as follows :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right, in holding that the purchase and installation of secondhand machinery not earlier used by the firm, which was otherwise an industrial undertaking, disentitles the firm from claiming deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that mere purchasing of a polishing machine by an undertaking already in existence and addition of one more process to the existing manufacturing in the accounting year corresponding to the assessment year 1969-70 did not constitute setting up of a new industrial undertaking ?(iii) Whether, on the facts an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »