Rajasthan Court July 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.
Nagar Mal Mishra and anr. Vs. Lal Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ39
D.C. Dalela, J.1. A claim petition was filed before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, by the appellants on account of the death of their son, Anil Kumar, in a motor accident on 15.7.1986 on Beawar-Ajmer road. The deceased, Anil Kumar was going from Ramganj to Ajmer on his bicycle on his correct side, suddenly a truck No. RSZ 5657 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, respondent No. 2, came from behind and hit Anil Kumar due to which he died at the spot. The appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation. The res pondent No. 2 did not appear before the Tribunal and ex pane proceedings were taken against him. Respondent No. 1, the owner of the truck and respondent No. 3, the insurance company with whom the truck was insured, contested the claim petition and filed their replies. Two witnesses, Nagar Mal, PW 1, and Rod Mal, PW 2, were examined on behalf of the appellants. No witness was examined on behalf of the opposite party. The learned Tribuna...
Chatra Ram and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC161; 1996(1)WLN517
R.R. Yadav, J.1. It is evident from perusal of the facts of this case that on the basis of order passed under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. by the learned Magistrate on 3.6.95 the property in dispute was attached on the ground of emergency after passing preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate was satisfied about apprehension of breach of peace, therefore, he proposed to proceed under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C.1-A After service of notice upon respondents No. 2 to 11 it was brought to the notice of learned Executive Magistrate that a regular suit No. 17/94 is pending before a competent revenue court between the parties and in that regular suit the revenue court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners on 23.9.94 Irrespective of aforesaid facts brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate by way of raising preliminary objection he refused to drop the proceeding under Section 145(1) and 146(1) of Cr.P.C. and rejected their preliminary objection o...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chando Khatun and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1307
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the insurance company has been directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, awarding a sum of Rs. 79,500/- as compensation to the respondent No. 1, Chando Khatun.2. The relevant facts are that Yamin (20 years) was going on a cycle on 19.9.1986 at about 11.15 p.m. when bus No. RNB 117 coming with excessive speed hit the cyclist from behind. Yamin sustained injuries. He died in the hospital next day. Parents of Yamin filed claim case No. 540 of 1986 stating therein that they were the legal representatives of Yamin. That claim case was compromised in the Lok Adalat and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded as compensation. It is on 22.11.1988 that Chando Khatun filed this application for compensation stating therein that she was the widow of Yamin and she was entitled to compensation. She impleaded her father-in-law and mother-in-law as respondents Nos. 5 and 6. The respondent No. 4, insurance company raised preliminary object...
Sunil and Co. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC562; 1996(2)WLN198
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the order at Annex. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and prayed that the same may be quashed.2. Relying upon the two unreported Judgments of two different learned Single Judges of this Court learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order be quashed as the work in a factory of the petitioner was carried out by the casual labourers and it was not a work in connection with establishment. First case was decided by P.P. Naolekar, J. on 8.11.94, Rishabh Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd v. Union of India and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3235/83. From the photo stat copy of the order it appears that none remained present for the respondents in that case and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner the petition was allowed. That judgment was followed by Shri V.G. Palshikar, J. on 29.8.95 where learned Counsel Shri R.K. Soni appeared for the respondents and orders were set aside relying upon these Judgment. It was submitted...
Rashbeg Singh and anr. Vs. Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC128; 1996(2)WLN250
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner employer has challenged the ex-parte order passed by the respondent No. 1. Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and the order at Annex. 8 rejecting the application to set aside the ex-parte order passed by it.2. Learned Counsel Shri Agarwal vehemently submitted that the respondent No. 1, Authority should not have passed the ex-parte order against the petitioners when their advocate pleaded no instructions before him. This submission of Mr. Agarwal cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the said order was not an ex-parte order. The petitioners were duly served by the notice. In fact they have filed their appearance through their advocate. The petitioner No. 2 who is son of petitioner No. 1 used to remain present before the authority. The registered notice was also received by him on behalf of his father, petitioner No. 1. But, thereafter, did not remain present and, therefore, the advocate had to plead no instructions. Thereafter, the authority ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.N.G.C. Agent of Cgg
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR97(Raj)
M.G. Mukherji, Actg. C.J.1. D.B. Income-tax Reference Application No. 15 of 1995 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against an order dated July 21, 1993, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in R. A. Nos. 15, 16 and 17/JP of 1992 arising out of I. T. A. Nos. 420, 421 and 422/JP of 1988, for the assessment year 1985-86.2. D. B. Income-tax Reference Application No. 19 of 1995 is also directed against the self-same order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in R. A. Nos. 15, 16 and 17/JP of 1992 arising out of I. T. A. Nos. 420, 421 and 422/JP of 1988 for the assessment year 1984-85.3. D. B. Income-tax Reference Application No. 29 of 1995 is also directed against the self-same order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in R. A. Nos. 15, 16 and 17/JP of 1992 arising out of I. T. A. Nos. 420, 421 and 422/JP of 1988 for the assessment year 1983-84.4. In all these income-tax reference applications, common questions of fact and law are involved a...
Parmanand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1482
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri on 5-9-1990 by which he took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 323, I.P.C. and directed issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioners.3. A perusal of the original record shows that on 2-8-1989 Hasti Mal filed an application in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Desuri. In that application he submitted that the final report submitted by the police was not liable to be accepted that the accused persons had in fact given a beating and a medical certificate was submitted at the police station and a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Therefore, cognizance be taken against them.4. It appears that on 24-5-1986 at 2 p.m. Hasti Mal submitted a typed report before the Station House Officer of ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Raj)233
ORDER OF TRIBUNAL--Scope.Ratio :(i) When a question is raised before the Tribunal and is dealt with by it, it is clearly one arising out of its order. (ii) When a question of law is raised before the Tribunal but the Tribunal fails to deal with it, it must be deemed to have been dealt with by it and, is, therefore, one arising out of its order. (iii) When a question is not raised before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal deals with it, that will also be a question arising out of its order. (iv) When a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, it will not be a question arising out of its order notwithstanding that it may arise on the findings given by it. Held :Any question of law arising out of such order' cannot be construed as meaning any question of law arising out of the findings in the order of the Tribunal, but they properly mean a question of law which must have been raised before the Tribunal and considered by it. A Tribunal cannot legitimately ask...
Ajay Textiles and 10 ors. Vs. Acjm No. 1
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC283; 1996(1)WLN532
B.J. Sethna, J.1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as common question of law is involved in these petitions.2. Petitioners are different but non-petitioners are same. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, non-petitioner No.3 has preferred to file reply affidavit in one petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4933 of 1992. Learned counsel Shri Dave appears for the non-petitioner No. 3, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and states that he is authorised to appear only in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4933 of 1992.3. Learned counsel Shri Bhandari for the petitioner, in all these petitions, has vehemently challenged the impugned order at annex. 1 dated 18.5.1992 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur by which 12 criminal cases filed by the complainant, Rajasthan Rajya Jal Pradushan Niwaran and Niyantran Mandal against 12 different units of Jodhpur were transferred from the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jodhpur to the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magis...
The State Vs. Amit and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ121; 1996(2)WLN192
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment delivered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpuron 23rd February, 1987 acquitting the respondents Amit and Jai Singh of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as below:Mahendra Singh was in the employment of Seth Durga Prasad Sabu who was living in House No. 16/A Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. According to the prosecution a Honda generator was stolen from the above mentioned house of Seth Durga Prasad Sabu. The first information report about the alleged theft was lodged at the Police Station on 18th June, 1985. In that report it was stated that sometime ago a Honda generator of red colour had been stolen from House No. 16/A, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. On the basis of the first information report submitted by Mahendra Singh, the Police ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »