Rajasthan Court May 1988 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.
Sushma Lata Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC101
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the Award (Annexure 5) dated 5th March, 1986 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') The petitioner was injured in an accident which took place on 19th November, 1981 and she sustained injury on her leg. The petitioner submitted a claim before the Tribunal in which she claimed an amount of Rs. 35,400/- against the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. By the impugned Award the said claim of the petitioner was settled for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- payable by respondent No. 4. The said Award was given on the basis of a compromise arrived at by the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondent No. 4 during the course of Lok Adalat. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said Award on the ground that the said compromise was entered by her counsel without her authority and that the said compromise is contrary to the provisions contained in Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C.2. we find that ...
Hari Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)316
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The revision, has been filed by the six petitioners against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar dated 21-8-1980, by which their appeal against the judgment of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, dated 5-8-1973 had been partly rejected. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate had convicted the appellants Hari Singh, Sukhdeo Singh, Amrit Singh Milkha Singh, Hardeep Singh and Sajan Singh under Section 147 IPC and sentenced them to three month's R.I. each with a fine of Rs. 100/- each He had further convicted them under Section 447, IPC and sentenced them to two month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 150/- each He also convicted appellant Hari Singh under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to six month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. He also convicted accused Hardeep Singh under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to one month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Hardeep Singh f...
Amar Das Vs. Seeta Ratan Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN499
Kapoor, J.1. The defendant-petitioner is the appellant before the District Judge, jaipur City in a decree for eviction passed against him. During the pendency of the appeal, he moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of two site plans. This application has been refused by the court below by order dated 20-11-1987 holding that the documents have been submitted in order to make up the deficiency in his case and could not be admitted into evidence. At the same time, it was also observed that the court also does not feel it necessary to take the documents on record for purpose of deciding the suit.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has to be deposed at the time of hearing the appeal. Without Knowing the facts and circumstances of the case the court cannot decide as to whether the documents are required to be produced to enable the court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. As the...
Ambalal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)314
Milap Chandra, J.1. Heard. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner Amba Lal that he also lodged a report against the complainant Dharam Chand and his brother Jagdish within 24 hours of the occurrence. Amba Lal also received three injuries including two injuries caused by some sharp edged weapon injured. Dharam Chand received only six simple injuries. It has further been contended that there exists old enmity between the parties.2. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that injured Dharam Chand received injuries on the vital parts of his body and the accused petitioner received injuries during the scuffle from his own weapon.3. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner Amba Lal in the event of his arrest by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, Charbhuja on the accusation made against him in FIR No. 29/88 of the said Police Station on the basis of which a case u/sections 324, 307 has been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›