Rajasthan Court December 1987 Judgments
Padam Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN396
1. Shri Padam Kumar Jain. President, Rajasthan Judicial Service Association, addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of this Court on 4th September, 1987. This letter was directed to be registered as a writ petition and was listed before a division bench of this Court. The Division Bench by its order dated 8th September, 1987, issued a notice to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted After service the case was admitted vide order dated 6th November, 1987. Shri BL Sharma appeared for the petitioner and prayed that an ad interim stay order should be passed directing the respondent lo allow selection scale and super-time scale to the RJS Officers anologous to the RAS Officers in the State of Rajasthan.2. Shri S.B. Mathur appeared on behalf of the State and prayed for time to file reply and the case was listed for orders and hearing on 17th November, 1987. On 17th November, 1987. time was sought on behalf of the S...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN437
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is a tenant defendant's second appeal in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. This appeal had come up before me earlier on 7th May, 1987, and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the case was remanded back to the first appellate court for recording additional evidence, on the ground of subsequent event to show that the landlord has acquired alternative accommodation where his son is carrying on his business of auto repairs. The first appellate court has recorded the additional evidence and has submitted the same to this court. Now, this case has come up for final disposal at the admission stage.2. The plaintiff respondent had filed the suit out of which the present appeal has come up, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity, on 4-1-1973. The trial court decreed the suit on 15-4-1975. During the pendency of appeal, because of amendment in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Evi...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. Smt. Tulsi Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj191
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same award dt. Aug. 24, 1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, therefore, they are decided by this one judgment.2. It will suffice for the purposes of these appeals to state that on May 29, 1978, the claimants-respondents 1 to 3 filed a claim petition for sum of Rs. 9,10,000/- against the appellant and the respondents Nos. 4 to 7, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. On Dec. 27, 1977 at about 3.00 p.m. deceased Uma Shanker, deceased Kumari Meghna along with Smt. Tulsi Devi one of the claimants, were going to Ludhiana from Jaipur Via Delhi in a Ambassador Car No. WMC 7749 of M/s. Gold Spot Agencies. The car was driven by deceased Girdhari Lal. When the car reached near Chandwaji village, a truck bearing No. HRR 8215 driven by Madanlal, respondent 2 dashed against the car which resulted in death of the above 5 persons. The Tribunal, after recording evidence and hearing all the parties, passed an a...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)197
G.M. Lodha, Acting C.J.1. Since both these writ petitions involve identical questions of law, we have accepted the request of the learned Counsel for the parties to decide them by this common judgment.2. In both the writ petitions the petitioners have not been arrested so far and the detention order has not been served upon them. It appears that earlier they filed another writ petition against the detention order dated 22nd October, 1986 under provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (here in after referred to as the Act). The earlier writ petitions were also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Stay order was obtained in that writ petition and on account of that, detention orders were not served. Thereafter those writ petitions were withdrawn. No liberty was granted to the petitioners to file fresh writ petition in those writ petitions. After the withdrawal of the writ petitions, for 5-6 months according ...
Tag this Judgment!Ninau Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN66
1. This writ petition is bound to succeed on a very short but surest point that the petitioner who has been unseated from the post of Chairman of the Bharatpur Kisan Kriya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti, Bharatpur, was never allowed an opportunity to show cauie nor heard, nor served with a notice showing the alleged disqualifications.2. Obviously an elected citizen, holding an elected office can never he unseated without observing principles of natural justice. Further an opportunity of hearing against the alleged disqualifications is the basic principle of natural justice, so innovated by the Supreme Court in Smt. Menka Gandhi's case AIR 1978 SC 597 make it incumbent upon any such authority, who wants to pass adverse order, to first allow an opportunity of hearing to the concerned party.3. The principle of 'audi alteram partem' which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. This principles is to be applied inrespective of the fact whether the s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jagannathi and ors. Vs. Mohan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN335
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the award dated November 23, 1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi in Claim Case No. 1/82, whereby no responsibility for payment of claim was fixed against owner Mohan Singh, driver Surendra Singh and Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company regarding the Matador bearing No. RRR 9039.2. It will suffice to state for the purpose of this appeal that deceased Ram Kishan was carrying a bag of vegetables in Matadoor No. RRR 9093 and was sitting on the seat of the driver. One more person was also sitting between the deceased and the driver on the same seat. The deceased was coming from Chhatarganj to Kota. When the Matador reached near Ghoda Pachad Nadi (river), a truck RSR 4647 came from the opposite side, which is said to be driven rashly and negligently and resulted in accident as the truck brushed the Matador while passing at that place. The deceased was thrown out of the Matador and died. The Tribunal has awarded a...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tulsi Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC173
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same award dated August 24, 1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, therefore, they are decided by this one judgment.2. It will suffice for the purposes of these appeals to state that on May 29, 1978, the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition for sum of Rs. 9,10,000/- against the appellant and the respondents No. 4 to 7, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. On December 27, 1977 at about 3-00 P.M. deceased Uma Shanker, deceased Kumari Meghna alongwith Smt. Tulsi Devi one of the claimants, were going to Ludhiana from Jaipur via Delhi in a Ambassador Car No. WMC 7749 of M/s Gold Spot Agencies. The car was driven by deceased Girdhari Lal. When the car reached near Chandwaji village, a truck bearing No. HRR 8215 driven by Madanlal, respondent No. 2 dashed against the car, which resulted in death of the above 3 persons. The Tribunal, after recording evidence and bearing all the partie...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannathi Vs. Mohan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC71
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the award dated November 23,1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi in Claim Case No. 1/82, whereby no responsibility for payment of claim was fixed against owner Mohan Singh, driver Surendra Singh and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company regarding the Matadoor bearing No. RRR 9039.2. It will suffice to state for the purposes of this appeal that deceased Ram Kishan was carrying a bag of vegetables in Matadoor No. RRR 9093 and was sitting on the seat of the driver. One more person who also sitting between the deceased and the driver on the same seat. The deceased was coming from Chhatarganj to Kota. When the Metadoor reached near Ghoda Pachad Nadi (river), a truck RSR 4647 came from the opposite side, which is said to be driven rashly and negligently and resulted in accident as the truck brushed the Metadoor while passing at that place. The deceased was thrown out of the Matadoor and died. The Tribunal has awa...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Alias Rajjan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN574
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur under his judgment dated April 18, 1984 dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioner both in respect of his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) as well as his sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The said conviction was recorded and sentence was inflicted on the accused petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur under his judgment dated June 10, 1983.2. Hari Dutt Sharma PW 1 was the Food Inspector, Bharatpur on May 7, 1981. On that day he saw that the accused-petitioner was carrying milk for the purposes of sale and near Dak bungalow, Bharatpur, he (Hari Dutt Sharma) introduced himself to the accused-petitioner and disclosed his identity as Food Inspector and purchased 660 ml. milk after paying its price. The sample was divided...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN599
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is third bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC, Two have been rejected earlier. It is strange that accused is moving one after another bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC since June, 1987 and despite the fact that the State is being notified about the applications no efforts are being made to apprehend the accused. The learned Counsel submits his client was ready and willing to surrender himself before the Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg but he was not prepared to consider the application under Section 438 Cr PC. I am unable to appreciate the oral prayers made and observations passed by the Court. It does not behove either of two to negotiate some thing hypothetically without either the accused being before the court or the application being decided if there is one. On the strength of the order passed in Nasru's bail application it is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already taken a view that the appropriate court is the court of Mag...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »