Rajasthan Court February 1996 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.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tahir Mohammed and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC418
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the award dated 24.8.91 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- as compensation to the claimants and dismissed the remaining claim of Tahir Mohammed and others for the remaining amount.2. Tahir Mohammed filed the Claim Petition No. 169 of 1991 for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 10,80,000/-. The case of the claimants, as set-out in the claim petition, is that he was the driver of truck No. RRJ 3819. He parked the truck on the Kaccha side of the road. A truck bearing No. RSM 1339 came from Udaipur side. Truck No. RSM No. 1339 was being rashly and negligently driven by its driver Dunga and it dashed against the stationary truck of the claimant. The truck, also, hit the claimant, due to which he fell down on the road. The truck crossed over his legs, due to which his left leg was completely sm...
Veer Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC399; 1996(1)WLN560
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The penalty for removal from service was given to the petitioner in respect of three misconducts alleged to have been committed by him. The petitioner was appointed as a Rakshak (Constable) on 28.7.61 and was confirmed on 3.5.64.The incident is or 7.12.1985. The statement of allegations and charges were framed according to which the petitioner used filthy language and when he was stopped he tried to assault, Asstt. Sub-Inspector Gopi Singh. The petitioner was asked to give the statement which was also refused. As such for three charges the matter was proceeded.2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statement was recorded on 8.12.1985 by the complainant officer and it has vitiated the entire inquiry. It is also stated that the petitioner was not given fair and reasonable opportunity of having the defence nominee and that the charges are vague inasmuch as even the alleged obusive language has not been reproduced in the statement of alle...
Kan Singh and anr. Vs. Jagdish Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC695
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Award and Decree dated 22.4.88 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 14,000/- as compensation to claimant Jagdish Singh.2. Claimant Jagdish Singh, on 7.1.83, filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 31,039/-. The case of the claimant as set-out in the claim petition, was that on 10.7.82, at about 8.00 a.m. he was going to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for his treatment. He was going on his scooter No. RSQ 1489 from Mandore side to Paota side. When he reached near the house of Shri Khet Singh Rathore, a truck No. RJQ 3939 came from behind hit the claimant. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Ranjeet Singh Sankhla. On account of this accident the claimant received injuries on both the legs, left hand, nose, eye and the head. His scooter ...
Dwarka Prasad Vs. Mishri Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC428; 1996(1)WLN204
R.R. Yadav, J.1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 23.7.1994 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 41/94 known as Mishrilal v. Dwarka Prasad whereby it has granted temporary injunction to the respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to dispose of a portion of plot No. 7 and the present appellant has been restrained from interfering in disposing of a portion of the aforesaid plot which is marked as 'D' 'E' 'G', 'H in the sketch map accompanying with the plaint.2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial court the appellant has preferred the present misc. appeal.3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for disposal of the instant appeal are that respondent Mishrilal filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts alongwith an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC stating therein that the respon...
Ahmed Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3315
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The appellant was prosecuted along with his son Ast Ali on charges under Sections 452, 302 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC for having committed murder of Hasam Khan and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 1000/- as fine. He has also been convicted under Section 452, IPC and sentenced to two years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/-. His son Ast Ali was acquitted of charges under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC but convicted under Sections 452, 325/34 and 323, IPC. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant alone. Therefore, we are not concerned with the convictions and sentences of Ast Ali.2. The prosecution case in short was that Manir Khan, his younger brother Mangu Khan and appellant's brother Ikbal Khan were married to daughters from the family of one Bhader Khan resident of Deeplana. The appellant's sister is also married ...
Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Chiranjilal Yadav and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC303; 1996(1)WLN563
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition for habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner, Suresh Kumar Yadav, alleging illegal detention and confinement of the detenue, Anuradha, by the respondents herein, who are the parents of detenue on the averments that the petitioner and the detenue Anuradha had developed liking for each other and wanted to marry to lead their life together. This enraged the parents of Anuradha and therefore, they pressurised and tortured her so that she could give up her determination to marry the petitioner. It was alleged by the petitioner that the girl's parents, who are respondents No. 1 and 2 here in, were secretly making arrangements to marry the detenue with another person against her wishes. It was, therefore, prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the girl with the direction to allow her to go and live as per her choice and wish.2. It is quite obvious from the facts stated hereinbefore that the petitioner, prima facie, failed to m...
inder Chand Vs. Mukna
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC493; 1996(1)WLN199
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 31.9.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaitaran where by he set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.2.1985 of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran and directed to return the plaint for presentation before the Debt Relief Court established under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtness Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 28 of 1957.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit against the defendant-respondent in the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran on 20.12.1973 for recovery of Rs. 5,000/-on the basis of so-called pronote and receipt alleged to have been executed by the defendant-respondent in his favour.3. The defendant-respondent filed a written statement on 10.5.74 denying the so-called execution of pronote and receipt. It is further ...
Shyam Singh Vs. State or Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC441; 1996(1)WLN229
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. Heard. The petitioner has been working as an Assistant Accounts Officer, in the office of the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Jodhpur (The respondent No. 4). He took leave with effect from 30th July, 1991 and went to Nadiad in the State of Gujarat, in connection with the engagement-ceremony of his son. There, he fell ill by suffering from Extra Sock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and got admitted in the Mulji Bhai Patel Urology Hospital, Nadiad, where he was operated upon on 1st August, 1991 and where he remained admitted upto 5th August, 1991. He made payment of Rs. 6,000/- by way of operation-charges and spent Rs. 266.24, for purchasing the medicines, prescribed by the said Hospital. A receipt dated 6th August, 1991 (Annex. 1) was issued to him in respect of the operation-charges paid by him to the Hospital and the certificate dated 6th Aug. 91 (Annex. 2) was issued in respect of the verification of the bills amounting to Rs. 266.24, by which, the medicines ...
Prem Raj Vs. Bhanwar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC394; 1996(1)WLN197
R.R Yadav, J.1. The Instant Misc. Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24.5.95 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore Camp at Bhlnmal holding that the learned Civil Judge Senior Division where Municipal Board is situated, has jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition, therefore, he directed to return the Election Petition for its presentation before the said Court.2. In support of his aforesaid conclusion, he has placed reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Lola Maharaj v. Ram Chandra and Ors. reported in 1972 WLN 1118.3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. M.S. Singhvi as well as learned counsel Mr. Shambhoo Rathore appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.4. Main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the appellant Mr. M.S. Singhvi before me is that Section 40 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act No. 38 of 1959 deals with presentation of the Election Pet...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. G.S. Atwal and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Raj170; 1996WLC(Raj)UC676
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred before this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 29th May, 1995, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Karauli in Civil Misc. Petition No. 5/95, whereby the learned trial Court had allowed the application moved by the claimant-respondent under Section 8(2) read with Sections 20 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). The brief facts giving rise to thefiling of the present revision petition are that an agreement was duly executed between the parties for execution of certain work as per the agreement. Soon after the execution of the agreement certain disputes arose between the parties and for resolving the said disputes as per Clause 23 of the agreement, the same were required to be referred to the Arbitrator to be appointed by the State Government not below the rank of Superintending Engineer. It has been further contended in the petition that n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »