Rajasthan Court February 1991 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Teeja and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC201
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Barmer dated. December 15,1988 by which the claimant- respondent have been granted Rs. 1,49,500/- as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum. The facts of the case-giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. On February 1,1986, at about 7p.m, late Bhagwanaram (husband of the claimants-respondent No. Land father of die claimants-respondents No.2 to 6) was going on hisbullock cart on the correct side the road. Water tanker No. RJC 3798 came along frombehind and dashed against the bullock cart. As a result thereof, Bhagwanaram was flung off the cart impetuously and succumbed on the spot, the bullocks received serious injuries and the cart was badly damaged. Police Station, Barmer registered a case against the tanker driver Shankarlal. The claimants filed their claim petition for Rs. 4,4...
Dhanraj Singh and Etc. Etc., Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, R ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj31; 1991(1)WLC642; 1991(2)WLN227
ORDERKanta Bhatnagar, J. 1. The writ petitions in the Schedule Anx. 1, arise out of the order dated 6-1-89 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by which the petitions of the respondents were allowed and the permits in favour of the petitioners here, were cancelled and the matters were remanded to the R.T.A. for granting fresh permits, after hearing the concerned parties, according to law. As all the writ petitions arise out of the same order, I propose to dispose them of by one common order.2. Though the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has been assailed on a number of grounds, Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, confined his arguments to the point that the petitioners were not served upon in the appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and,therefore, it is a case of passing an order without hearing the affected parties.3. Mr. P.C. Sharma, learned Dy. Government Advocate, submitted that the respondents w...
Rajasthan Nagar Palika Seva Nirwat Karmchari Sangh Vs. the State of Ra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN562
V.S. Dave, J.1. Despite repeated observations of this Court, the State of Rajasthan has exhibited, as usual these days, its could attitude towards the cases pending in this Court and no assistance has been lent, as no reply has been submitted despite repeated notices. In January, 1989 the service of notice of this petition was effected on 'the State but no reply was filed despite several opportunities and one months' time was asked for in August, 1989, when it was listed before my learned brother Hon'ble M.B. Sharma. He observed in his order that, 'One month's time is prayed for but I grant six weeks. Put up after six weeks as prayed.' This two weeks' grace period was not enough for the State and case lingered on for yet in another year and a half and when the case was listed on 8-2-91, the arguments commenced but without any reply. However, the case was adjourned as the Court was of the opinion that in a matter where policy of the State was under challenge, the State Government's repl...
Nawab Khan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN70
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated January 30,1990, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ladnu, by which the learned Magistrate rejected the bail application filed by the petitioners and refused to enlarge them on bail Under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.2. Gordhan Gurjar, on October 19,1989, filed a written report at Police Station, Ladnu, to the effect that the accused-petitioners along with other co-accused armed with sword, Barchhis as Lathis, passed through the lane where the complainant along with his brother Bhagirath and son Ladu Lal was sitting. After sometime, he heard a noise that some persons are burning the ice factory. When he went there, forty to fifty Mohammedan persons were destroying his factory bringing the wood from inside the factory and were burning the wood. On seeing the complainant party, the accused party tried to kill them, but complainant party rescued themselves by hiding themselves in the house of...
The Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Mahendra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN113
Milap Chandra, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated January 21, 1982 by which he has allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondent No.l Mahendra moved under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2, C.P.C. and has restrained the defendants from auctioning the immovable properties mentioned in Schedule-ka attached with the plaint and not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and the defendants no.6 Chowlal and no.7 Smt. Meena Devi. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. The plaintiff-respondent Mahendra has filed a suit in forma-paupris for declaration & injunction with the allegations, in short, as follows. The Commissioner of Income Tax-cum-Estate Duty, Jodhpur (defendant-appellant no.2) has issued recovery certificate to the Collector, Bikaner (defendant-respondent No.2) for the recovery of the amount of the estate duty payable on the death of Rajkanwari alleging that she died leaving behind ...
Teja Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN450
N.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated 15-4-1989 whereby he has convicted the accused appellants Under Sections 302, 148 and 458 IPC and sentenced them as follow:(i) Under Section 148 IPC: 3 years R.I.(ii) Under Section 458 IPC: 14 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. of one month.(iii) Under Section 302/149 IPC: To life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to one month R.I.with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that a dispute existed between Nathuram cousin of Motaram on one side and Tejaram, Ramlal on the other side and a case regarding agricultural land was pending between the parties. On 13-2-91 Motaram was sleeping in his house. At about 1 A.M. he was aroused from sleep on hearing the cries of his brother Ramlal who was sleeping in the Nohra alongwith his mother. He opened t...
Satnam Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)93
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated October 11, 1990, and order dated January 21, 1991, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh, by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for delivery of Raida (cart) to the petitioner.2. On September 11, 1990, Fakruddin, Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Anoopgarh, while he was on patrolling duty, checked the raida (cart), which was driven by the petitioner and which was carrying ten passengers. The Raida did not contain any number plate nor was it registered. A power engine of more than 8 to 10 Horse Power was fixed on this Raida (cart) and it was having four wheels. A case under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the petitioner Satnam Singh and the Raida (cart) was seized by the police, which is lying in the premises of the Police Station, Anoopgarh. After the seizure of the Raida (cart), an application was moved by the petitioner before...
Sohan Raj Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)89
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated June 8, 1989, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj, for quashing the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 500 IPC.2. Complainant Ranjeet Mal filed a complaint in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj, against the petitioner Sohan Lal under Section 500 IPC. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused Sohan Lal, on April 2, 1988, sent a letter from Bangalore by registered post, in which certain allegations were made against the complainant which are defamatory in nature and on reading this letter by other persons in the locality, where he commands a good reputation, his prestige republication has been damaged. The complaint was submitted by the complainant in the Court on May 25, 1989. The learned Magistrate, alter submission of the complaint, records the statement of the complainant Ranjeet Mal under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and those of his witnesses C...
Prem Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)129
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition along with other writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule A appended to this order, is disposed of by this common order as the question of law involve in these writ petition is common.2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of Prem Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1551/1989 are taken into consideration.3. The Petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the orders Exs. 2, 3 and 7 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to accept rent @ Rs.80/- from the petitioner and adjust the amount already deposited in excess in the previous years. It has also been prayed that decision taken by the Nazul land Price Fixing Committee for fixing the price of the shops @ Rs. 4500/- per sq. yards may be quashed.4. The petitioner was allotted a shop No. 4 in the Kamla Nehru Market, Hanumangarh Junction. The petitioner is a vegetable vendor and use to sale vegetables on the f...
Vena Ram Vs. Mst. Anji Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN415
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated June 2, 1988, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Desuri, by which the learned Magistrate allowed the application Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. filed by Smt. Anji Devi and awarded a maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month to her.2. Smt. Anji Devi, on July 21, 1982, filed an application Under Section 125 Cr. PC against Vena Ram- the husband-in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Desuri. It was alleged in the application that she was married to Vena Ram on April 22, 1977, and remained with the non-applicant Venaram up to June, 1981. Out of the wed-lock, a female child Sangita was born on August 14, 1979 and a son Praveen was born on October 4, 1981. The non-applicant Venaram used to give beatings to her and in the month of 'VAISHAK' of the year 1981, she alongwith her husband had gone to attend the marriage of the cousin of her husband. Thereafter the non-applicant left...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »