Rajasthan Court May 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Smt. Mangi Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1370; AIR1997Raj61
Mohammed Yamin, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the award dated 21-9-1989 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in village Chauhtan one Vira Ram resident of Chauhtan while coming out of house of his relative in the evening of 28-3-1989 proceeded towards shops of Kheta Ram with Shyam Lal. He was on the left side of the road. When he was moving towards road of Gram Panchayat, a truck hit him from behind. Respondent No. 8 S.K. Gurang was the driver of the truck who drove it rashly and negligently. As a result of hit, Vira Ram fell down and truck ran over him. Vira Ram sustained serious injuries and he became unconscious. The driver ran away with the truck. Vira Ram was taken to Chauhtan hospital and since he was very serious, he was shifted to Barmer hospital. He died on 29-3-1989. After the accident, the truck was chased by a jeep. A report was also lodged in the Police Station and the matter was inves...
Ajayab Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3182
A.K. Singh, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 6/94 (68/84) State v. Ajayab Singh, the appellant was tried for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.2. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fiine of Rs. 100/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for default in payment of fine. The appellant was acquitted of the offence punisahble under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh the appellant has filed this appeal.4. The prosecution case in short is that about three months before the lodging of the FIR on 28-5-1983 deceased Darshan Muni went to village Lilawali from Dhani Bakhtawarsinghwali. He set up a small hut there and started his worship. Deceased Darshan Muni was the disciple of Guru ...
Hamid Alias Bhuria Vs. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC335; 1998ACJ323
G.L. Gupta, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur vide judgment dated 18.2.1991. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the claimant Hamid alias Bhuria for the injuries suffered by him and a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to Abdul Sattar for the damage to the autorickshaw.2. The accident had taken place in the night intervening 13/14.9.1988. Hamid alias Bhuria who used to earn his livelihood by carrying passengers in the autorickshaw No. RRG 1533 was moving slowly on the left side of the road when the bus of Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. No. RNP 2175 hit the autorickshaw with the result that it over-turned and Hamid alias Bhuria had sustained various injuries. The autorickshaw went up in flames. In the claim application a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed by Hamid alias Bhuria and a sum of Rs. 45,800/- was claimed by Abdul Sattar. The reply of the R.S.R.T.C. was th...
St. Soldier Public School Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC340; 1996(2)WLN98
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under--The respondent No. 4 is a restaurant at Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. The said respondent applied for grant of licence for serving of beer (beer bar licence) to the customers for consumption in the restaurant. Licence dated 26.9.95 (Annex. 7) was granted by the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 2) to the respondent No. 4. Saint Soldier Public School, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition with the allegations that the petitioner is a Senior Higher Secondary School and that in the vacinity there are Saint Xavier's Senior Higher Secondary School, Saint Annes Public School, Mahavir Digamber Senior Higher Secondary School, Merry Lands School, Rajdhani Hospital and a hostel for boarding of destitute students and that the licence (Annex. 7) should not have been granted to the respondent No. 4 and it has been prayed that the licence issued to the respondent No. 4 be quashed and responden...
Rajendra Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC287; 1996(2)WLN276
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The story of the case relates to the life of Mst. Suman Kanwar and Vinod Kumar Dhobi who liked to each other. But to their misfortune they belong to different castes and perhaps this is the root cause of their trouble. Mst. Suman Kanwar belongs to the family of Rajput, an upper caste in the society, while Vinod Kumar is Dhobi of lower caste. There is no gain saying that in our society caste still plays a significant role in human relationship and behaviour. These petitions disclose a sordid and disturbing state of affairs that such things should happen in their lives.2. The Habeas Corpus Petition was filed before this Court on 16th April, 1996 and on the same day, Shri S.R. Yadav, learned Public Prosecutor accepted notices of the respondents. He was directed to seek instructions on telephone and file reply to the writ petition by 18th April. On 18th, reply was filed and the petition was adjourned for the next day. On 19th April, direction to produce Suman Kanwar on ...
Ganesh Mal Surana and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Raj222; 1996(3)WLC34; 1996(1)WLN494
B.R. Arora, J.1. These three appeals raise a common question of law in the identical facts and arise out of the common judgment dated 20-4-1992 passed by the learned single Judge, by which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-appellants and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the convenient disposal of these appeals, the facts given in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 245 of 1992 (Mool Chand Mandot v. State of Rajasthan and others arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2186 of 1986) are taken into consideration.2. Appellant Mool Chand Mandot was an existing operator on Deogarh to Badnore via Bhim-Todgarh route having non-temporary stage carriage permit in his favour. This permit of the appellant-petitioner for the route was renewed before the approval of the Scheme of Deogarh-Badnore route. A Draft Scheme under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the Act') came to be published on 13-4-1979 in th...
P.N. Verma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)514; [1997]227ITR24(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1985-86, at the instance of the assessee, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the incentive bonus as salary paid to the Development Officer by the Life Insurance Corporation of India ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing deduction of 50 per cent, as expenditure out of incentive bonus paid to the assessee by the Life Insurance Corporation of India ?' 2. The assessee was working as the Development Officer in the office of the Life Insurance Corporation at Sri Ganganagar. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee, in addition to the other remunerations, received incentive bonus from the Life Insuran...
Vasudev Pardasani Vs. Smt. Nirmala
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC309; 1996WLC(Raj)UC209; 1996(1)WLN661
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. This Composite Petition Under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C) is directed against the combined order dated August 8, 1995 whereby the learned Judge, Family Court at Ajmer decided non-petitioner's Criminal Misc. Application No. 155 of 1991 Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and three applications of the petitioner being Criminal Misc. Appli- cation No. 208 of 1994 Under Sections 128, Cr. P.C., 209 of 1994 Under Section 127, Cr. P.C. and 333 of 1995 Under Section 125(3), Cr. P.C.2. Facts, relevant and sufficient to dispose all the points of controversy raised though this petition are these :3. The parties to this petition are Hindu by faith and religion. The petitioner resides at Delhi and the non-petitioner at Beawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. They were married at Beawar on November 14, 1960. The wedlock gave them two children of whom one, born on October 11, 1970, is alive. Since she has become major she has ceased to receive maint...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal Solanki and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN350
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The State has challenged In this appeal the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali dismissing the complaint filed by the State under Section 92 of the Factories Act only on the short ground of limitation and acquitted the respondents accused.2. The learned Magistrate held that the Complainant came to know about the accident of 31.5.88 on 2.6.88 and, therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 1.9.88 under the Act period of three months is provided for filling complainant. Instead of that the complaint was filed by his successor. Senior Inspector, in this office Shri V.D. Varnani on 22.9.88. Thus, the complaint was time barred by 21 days. Therefore, it was beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, no cognizance can be taken by him.3. Learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated the fact that the Shri Moondra, predecessor in the office of the complainant, inspected the factory premises onl...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Sarkari Sahayata Prapt Shikshan Sansth ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC43; 1996(1)WLN353
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.5.93 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge directed the respondent-appellant State of Rajasthan to modify the Grant-in-aid Rules, 1963 and extend the benefit of the order dated 9.2.93 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5447 of 1992 Prakash Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) to the teachers and the employees represented by the petitioner Sahkari Sahayata Prapt Shikshan Sansthan Shikshak and Karamchari Sangh, Rajasthan, Jodhpur (for short, 'the petitioner Sangh/association').2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that (i) when the judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge on 27.5.93, State Government had already enacted the Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 which came Into force with effect from 1.1.1993 and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 43 of the Act, 1989, the Rules were, also, framed which were made app...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »