Rajasthan Court August 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manjula Ben and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ57
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This Special Appeal has been preferred by the insurance company under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23.9.1986 allowing the claims of the respondents and rejecting the appeal filed by the insurance company.2. On 13.2.1979, at about 8 p.m. when Ram Bhai Patel and his wife Manjula Ben and daughter Chandrika Ben were on their way to Jaipur by car No. GJH 1472, they met with an accident as their car collided with a stationed vehicle No. RRM 3151. Due to severe injuries, Ram Bhai Patel died instantaneously whereas Manjula Ben received injuries and survived. Vehicle No. RRM 3151 was stationed by the driver carelessly and negligently without observing the rale of road as a result of which accident took place.3. At the time of death, the deceased was 47 years of age. The claimants, Manjula Ben was of 40 years, two daughters, namely, Homaksha Ben and Chandani Ben were 24 and 18 years of age and t...
Ravi Shankar Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1991
Reported in: AIR1993Raj117; 1993CriLJ1458; (1993)IILLJ1124Raj
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment dated May 31, 1988 of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur-city, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 22/88 confirming the order of conviction dated April 4, 1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur-city, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 2206/83, by which the petitioner was convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of the firm M./s. Rambagh Service Station, Jaipur. This firm is an authorised dealer of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for selling petrol and high speed diesel. It runs a petrol pump for selling the petrol and high speed diesel and also a Service Station for cleaning, washing and oiling of the vehicles.On July 20, 1983, the Deputy Chief Inspector, Factories and Boilers, inspected the establishment of the petitioner-firm and found that it was not registered under the Factories Act and...
Anju Behal and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ87
B.R. Arora, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the award dated December 7, 1988, passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, in Claim Case No. 21 of 1985 (Anju Behal v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation) and Claim Case No. 100 of 1985 (Ramesh Rani v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation), by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,89,000/- and apportioned the compensation so awarded amongst the various claimants and the dependants.2. Dr. Vinod Kumar Behal, who was working as the Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Dalimir Khera, District Firozpur (Punjab), had come to Sri Ganganagar on December 1, 1984. He along with Bhagat Ram Nagpal, on Luna moped, was going to village Nathawala side on Ganganagar-Hanumangarh State Highway on the left side of the road and when their Luna reached near the rubber factory, a bus No. RSG 6222 came from behind and dashed aga...
Anju Behal and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Rd. Trans. Corpn.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC215
B.R. Arora, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the award dated December 7,1988, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, in Claim Case No. 21 of 1985 (Smt. Anju Be gal and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. and Claim Case No. 100 of 1985 Smt. Ramesh Rani v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,89,000/- and apportioned the compensation so awarded amongst the various claimants and the dependents.2. Dr. Vinod Kumar Behal, who was working as the Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Dalimir Khera district Firozpur (Punjab), had come to Sri Ganganagar on December 1, 1984. He alongwith Bhagat Ram Nagpal, on Luna moped, was going to village Nathawala side on Ganganagar-Hanumangarh State Highway on the left side of the road and when their Luna reached near the rubber factory, a bus No. RSG 6222 ...
Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2873; 1991(2)WLN472
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Though this is a third bail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C., but it requires serious consideration due to circumstances developed later on.The petitioner is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 53/90 in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C.While rejecting the second bail application this Court had observed as under :--The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in jail since June, 1990 and not a single witness has been examined so far though the charges were framed on 23-10-1990. It is the duty of the trial Court to see that no undue delay is caused in the trial of a Sessions Case, and all efforts should be made that after framing of the charges, the trial is completed within two or three months, which had been the usual practice. I expect from the trial Court that all efforts shall be made to complete the trial expeditiously in Sessions Cases, not only in this case but in ...
Shyam Sunder Lal Sahu and 4 ors. Vs. Rajasthan Khadi and Village Indus ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC540; 1991WLN(UC)266
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. All these petitions have been filed with a common prayer for declaration that the pension scheme notified by the Government of Raj. vide Circular No. F. 4(5) IND/II/83 dated 11.9.1989 will govern and apply to all employees of the Khadi and Village Industries Board, who retired on or before 28.1.1983. The petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to extend the benefits of the pension scheme to the petitioners. Since common question of law is involved in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The facts given in all the writ petitions are more or less identical & therefore, it will be sufficient to refere to the facts given in writ petition No. 1587/90 Ram Pal Karadiya v. Rajasthan Khadi & Village Industries Board.3. Petitioner Ram Pal Karadiya was retired from the service of the Rajasthan Khadi & Village Industries Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board') after 28.1.1983 but before 1.9.1988. His date of reti...
The State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction (India ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC363; 1991WLN(UC)358
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.4.1991 passed by the District Judge Ajmer, allowing application under Section 20 r/w Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, moved by the respondent, M/s Ferro Concrete Construction (India) Private Ltd.2. The tender submitted by the respondent for supply of P.S.C.C. Pipes was accepted by the appellant and a work order to the tune of nearly Rs. 10 Crores was given on 23.8.1988 which was received by the respondent on 30.8.1988. A formal agreement was executed on 11.1.1989 by which the work was to be executed within two years i.e. from 23.8.88 to 22.8.1990. Clause 23 of the agreement relating to arbitration runs as under:Clause 23. - If any question, difference or objection whatsoever shall arise in any way in connection with or arising out of this instrument, or the meaning of operation of any part thereof or the rights, duties or liabilities of either party, then save in so far as the decision of any such matter constit...
Neeta Chopra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN479
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that petitioner be held entitled to be appointed on a post falling in the category of subordinate service and the letter/order dated 4.9.1990 be held to be illegal and be set aside.2. Briefly stated, the husband of the petitioner deceased D.K.Chopra was posted as Senior Draftsman in the office of Executive Engineer(P.H.E.D.) in Jaipur. He died from cancer on 17.9.1989. The petitioner is M.A. Since her husband died while in service, she applied for getting suitable employment under the provisions of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 (for brevity the Rules, 1975'). Even though petitioner was highly qualified she accepted to be appointed on the post of LDC vide order dated 24.10.89 (Anx. 3) since there was no other way-out for survival of the family. The petitioner gave representations dated 16.1.90 (Anx. 4) and 21.2.90 (Anx. 5) praying that she is entit...
Kamla and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ958
D.L. Mehta and N.C. Kochhar, JJ.1. On 9.11.1989, Harinarain, who was the husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4, while going on a motor cycle met with an accident with a bus owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The appellants filed a claim claiming compensation from the respondent Corporation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk, who vide order dated 13th of July, 1990, passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), directed the respondent to pay to the appellants a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as the amount of no fault liability with a direction that if the amount was not paid within a period of two months from the date of the order, the respondent would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the abovesaid amount. The appellants filed a civil misc. appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim. ...
Nanu Ram Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN376
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This Writ petition is directed against the election of Moondara Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Moondara, Tahsil Sujangarh, District Churu.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the election Officer published the final list vide Annexure-2 containing certain names and that final list was changed on the last date of nomination and this could not have been done because it is against Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 and secondly, a person is eligible to cast his vote under Rule 32(4) of the aforesaid Rules only when his name is included in that list and therefore, the facts of this case according to Mr. Joshi, are not similar to these in Ramrakh v. State of Raj. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 110/1991 decided by this Court on 5-3-1991).3. According to Mr. Joshi, this case is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Chainaram v. State of Raj. and Ors. 1988 (I) RLR-343 wherein it has been held that Clause (c) to Sub-sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »