Rajasthan Court April 1994 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Anop Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj245
P.K. Palli, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment/award passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bhilwara. One Kan Singh deceased was going to his house and was on the right side of the road and the driver of the truck while driving rashly and negligently hit the bicycle from behind resulting in his death on the spot. The accident claim was filed by the widow and the son of the deceased. The incident took place on 31st May, 1980. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal gave the award for Rs. 62,600/- and held the owner of the truck, the insurance company and the State of Rajasthan to be jointly and severally liable. An interest at the rate of 9% p.a. has also been awarded. The truck at the relevant time was on election dutyhaving been requisitioned by the State. 2. Having carefully perused the award, I find no ground to interfere and affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 3. The appeal is consequently devoid of merit and...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kesar and ors. Vs. Smt. Anshumala
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC547; 1994(2)WLN594
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against an order and judgment dated 9.12.93 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gardhi, District Banswara rejecting the application dated 10.6.93 moved by the present accused-petitioners claiming speedy trial emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, cognizance was taken by the court on 7.7.83 and immediately after service of summons, the present accused-petitioners put in their appearance in Court but due to non-appearance of other 14 accused-persons, they are being harassed in the present case for more than 10 1/2 years.2. Brief facts of the case leading to the present dispute, are as follows. Respondent Smt. Anshumala filed a complaint against the present four accused-petitioners along with 14 other accused-persons for the offence Under Section 494 read with Section 109, IPC in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santra Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC554
R.S. Kajriwal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal believed the statement of the witnesses of the claimants, who assessed the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- p.m. It was also of the view that the deceased was of 25 years of age at the time of accident.2. By applying multiplier of 35, the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,54,000/- to the claimants. It also awarded interest and some other amounts of compensation. This Award has been challenged by the Insurance Company in this appeal. The Insurance Company can take only those defences, which are available to it under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (old) and Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act (New).3. No appeal can be filed on the ground that the amount awarded to the claimants is on the higher side.Consequently, I do not find any force in this appeal and the same is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Kastoori Udyog and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: 1994(48)ECC68
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, J.1. In this petition jointly filed by M/s. Kastoori Udyog, Bundi and three others, following prayers have been made by the petitioners:--i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned Notification dated the 30th April, 1992 issued by the Government of India published in the Gazette of India (Annexure-8),ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned Ordinance/order dated 11.5.1993 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure-9),iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the trade or business of the petitioners regarding manufacturing and selling of tooth paste/tooth powder containing tobacco namely Kastoori Manjan, Karishma Manjan Kapoori Dant Manjan and Super Dant Manjan respectively,iv) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction giving any other relief in favour of the petitioners,v) and the cost of the writ petition may also kindly be issued.2. Petitioners ha...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Shankar Mishra Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC266; 1994(2)WLN28
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Special appeal No. 317/91 with special appeal No. 468/93. Special appeal No. 317/91 is filed by appellant Rama Shanker Mishra against the Union of India and Ors. challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge partly allowing the writ petition filed by Rama Shanker Mishra. Second special appeal No. 468/93 is filed by the Union of India challenging the same judgment.2. That the appellant who was petitioner before the learned Single Bench questioned before it the decision of the Court Martial. The writ petition was partially allowed. The punishment of dismissal from service was set aside. Reinstatement of the appellant was directed but the finding of guilt was confirmed, it is that finding which is challenged in this appeal by the petitioner and it is setting aside of the order of dismissal which is impugned by the Union of India in their appeal. Facts giving rise to the present appeal by the original petitioner stated briefly are as under. The petitioner wa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC595; 1994(2)WLN584
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant revision is filed by revisionist- convict Bhanwar Singh Under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 14.8.85 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1984 convicting and sentencing him for the offence Under Section 352, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment and also convicting and sentencing him for the offence Under Section 341, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.2. It is held by the learned Sessions Judge that both the substantive sentences are to run consecutively.3. According to the prosecution story, while complainant. Basant Kumar Agrawal, Assistant Electrical Engineer of Gulabpura spinning Mills was returning on his cycle on 17.11.1983 after finishing his duties at about 6 p.m. when he was passing through Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura and reached near Shyam Me...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2348; 1994(1)WLN668
Rajendra Saxena, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17-9-84 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balo-tra, whereby the convicted appellants Raju Ram and Vazir Mohd. for the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and further convicted them for offence Under Sections 460 and 404, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively and further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. Briefly the relevant facts are that the I deceased Bastimal aged 75 years and his wife deceased Sua aged 70 years were residing in their house situated in village Patodi. They had only one daughter P.W. 4 Mangi Bai, who was living with her husband in the town of Pachpadra. They had no other issue. It is alleged that on 10th May, 1983, P.W. 7 Mohanlal, who was the nephew of deceased i Bastimal in distant relation and who was running a grocery shop in village ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sosar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC235; 1994(2)WLN587
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This Bail Application has been referred to Use Division Bench as the vires of Section 37(1)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (here in after referred to as the Act) has been challenged.2. Succinetly stated, the relevant facts are that on receiving a telephonic information, the Dy. S.P., Shahpura, District-Bhilwara made a search on the person of Smt. Sosar and it is alleged that from her possession 2.6 Kg. of opium was recovered in four packets concealed inside her petticoat(Ghaghra) and for the possession/transportation thereof she had no licence. Accordingly she was arrested for the offence punishable Under Section 8/18 of the Act. The learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Bhilwara by his order dated 7.10.93 has rejected her bail application.3. We have heard Shri M.M. Singhvi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State at length and carefully persuade the rel...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)121CTR(Raj)255; [1995]213ITR443(Raj)
JAIPUR BENCHM. R. CHALLA J. - The petitioner is a limited company corporate under the Indian Companies act, 1956, in the name and style Rajasthan Patrika Limited, having its registered office at Kesargarh, Jawaharlal Nehure Marg, Jaipur. According to the petitioner,, respondent No. 4 (J. K. Rastogi) held property comprising land area of 1,033.33 sq. yards, on building on the ground floor, part building on the first floor including roof and some construction on the second floor situated at 11, Hospital Road, Jaipur, known as Krishna Kunj. Respondent No. 4 being desirous of selling the abovesaid property and the petitioner-company being interested to purchase the same agreed to purchase it for a sale consideration of value of Rs, 25 lakhs and for that purpose entered into an agreement for sale, which was executed on March 7, 1991, and was got registered with the Sub-registrar, Jaipur-2 jaipur, on March 7, 1991. The petitioner-company parted with an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs 50 thousand on Ma...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Mehta Vs. Chief of the Army Staff and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN491
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by Colonel SM Mehta (Retired), for quashing his detention.2. The brief facts are as under - The petitioner had been serving in the Indian Army and was posted at the relevant time at Jaipur. After he retired from the service, certain irregularities were fund against him by the authorities concerned and, as such, a General Court Martial was ordered for trying the petitioner. He was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 52 and 63 of the Indian Army Act, 1950 (herein-after to be referred as 'the ACT') and was detained after being taken into the custody by virtue of Section 123 of the Act. General Court Martial proceedings were conducted and after the trial, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges in relation to the offences under Section 52 of the Act, but was found guilty of the charge under Section 63 of the Act, and punishment of forfeiture of four ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »