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.
Kamla Devi Vs. Jaswant Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1426
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. Claimant Kamla Devi has directed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in Motor Accident Claim No. 133 of 1980.2. Deceased Radhey Shyam was 2472 years of age at the time of the unfortunate accident. He was employed in the Police Department on the post of constable and was drawing Rs. 380/- per month at the relevant time. The Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,000/- per annum and adopting the multiplier of 20, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been calculated as the pecuniary loss to the family. To this amount a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been added for the loss of consortium.3. Mr. Mathur vehemently contends that the Tribunal has awarded grossly inadequate amount in this case and that the loss of dependency ought to have been calculated at much higher figure considering the present income of the deceased as Rs. 760/-. Mr. Lodha on the other hand supports the award.4. I have given i...
Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC320; 1996(2)WLN190
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the State Government dated 19.7.1995 refusing to make the reference in respect of industrial dispute on the ground of delay. The power under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act were exercised in this case. Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:12(5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in Sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board (Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal) it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefore.So far as the power under Section 12(5) of the I.D.Act is concerned, that could be exercised if the Govenment is satisfied that no industrial dispute exists or it is not expedient to make a reference. The discretion not to make the reference is to be exercised with caution. The Apex ...
R.S.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. Bhanwara Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC459; 1996(1)WLN485
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Petitioners by filing the instant writ petition question the Award dated 4.9.95 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner in Reference No. 53/89 between Bhanwar Ram and Ors. v. Managfrig Director, R.S.R.T.C. and Ors.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the. petitioners Mr. Sangeet Lodha at length. Perused the order impugned.3. A close scrutiny of the Award dated 4.3.95 leads towards an Irresistible conclusion that the learned Tribunal has recorded a positive finding to the effect that the petitioners are guilty of adopting unfair labour practice in denying employment to the respondent-employees on the post of Artisan. In support of its aforesaid finding the Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons with which I am at one.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention on some of the documents which have been appreciated by the learned Tribunal. In this regard suffice it to say that reappraisal of evidence is not possible under Article 226 of the ...
John Virendra Kumar Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC558; 1996(1)WLN487
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant writ petition has been preferred against the transfer order dated 18.6.1996 Anx. 18 to the writ petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly admitted before me that there is no allegation of malafide against the transferring authority.3. It is vehemently argued before me that the wife of the petitioner is posted at sheoganj, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be posted at the same place. According to Shri Srimali earlief vide order dated 6.12.95 Anx. 17 to the writ petition his transfer order was modified and he was transferred at Sheoganj where his wife is working.4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner vide impugned order Anx. 18 dated 18.6.96 he has been again transferred from Sheoganj to Reodar without assigning any reason.5. In my considered opinion transfer is an incidence of service and administrative exigencies can be ascertained only by the transferring authority not by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 ...
Smt. Shiv Pyari Vs. Smt. Vidhyavati and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN474
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/Award dated 15.4.82 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,26,400/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and held the owner and the driver of the Jonga Jeep liable to pay the amount of compensation. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, however, dismissed the remaining claim of the claimants and, also, held that the owner and the driver of the bus as well as Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Jodhpur (for short, 'the Sangh') and the National Insurance Company are not liable to pay any amount of compensation.2. Smt. Vidhyavati-the widow, Smt. Sugni Devi-the mother- and the sons and daughters of deceased Dr. Ashvariya Prasad Purohit, on 14.11.77, filed a claim petition in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Merta City for the award of compensation amounting ...
Border Security Force and anr. Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC518; 1996(1)WLN466
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 11,1988 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 104 of 1979 filed by the claimants and enhanced the compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge and also, granted solatium @ 30% and enhanced the rate of interest on the amount of compensation.2. Fifty-seven Bighas eleven Bishwas of land belonging to Balveer Singh and Raghuvir Singh bearing Khasra Numbers 1620, 1621, 1622 and 1625 situated on Mandore Road, Jodhpur was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Border Security Force. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') that the land is needed for Border Security Force, was issued and published in the gazette on 22-1-68. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act that the land is required for public purposes, with respect to this land was issued on 24-2-68 and the possession over the la...
Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC303; 1996(1)WLN535
S.C. Mittal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dt. 15.1.96 passed by learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Cases District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. The appellant has been convicted under Section 8 of 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh or in default to undergo two years R.I.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that SHO Antar Singh received a Mukhbir information that a person wearing white shirt and trousers with a bedding and one bag is sitting in the waiting hall of bus stand, Hanumangarh town and will proceed by Sadulshahar Bus. He is in illegal possession of poppy straw powder. This facormation was taken down as Ex. PI and forwarded to superior officer by wireless message Ex. P-3 and also entered in Rojnamacha 1552 Ex.P.2. Station House Officer Antar Singh proceeded to the place with...
Kesar Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC264; 1996(2)WLN1
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated, November 23, 1994 passed by Shri B.D. Gupta, Special Judge (Communal Riots Cases) cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 36/93 whereby the appellant - Kesar Lal has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant - Atma Ram has been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 511 I.P.C. and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.2. The case relates to an incident which took place towards North-West of village Gawri at about 6.30 p.m. on May 20, 1993. One Mukut Singh Rajput died as a result of the assault made on him by the appellant Kesar Lal with an axe. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant Kesar Lal was having his agricultural field near the pasture land of the village and on the day of ...
Dharam Chand Vs. S.T.A.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC451; 1996(1)WLN460
R.R. Yadev, J.1. Petitioner by filling the instant writ petition questions the impugned order dated 23.4.96 (Annx.3) passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur in exercise of its powers under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. Brief facts leading upto the stage of filing the instant writ petition are that the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer vide its order dated 12.12.95 (Annx.l) resolved to open a new route from Mohanpura to Kalbelia via Mandalgarh. The petitioner applied for grant of permit which was granted to her by the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer on the same day i.e. 12.12.1995.3. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 was a permit-holder on Mohanpura to Baneda via Mandalgarh route submitted a revision petition under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before respondent No. 1-State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur on the ground inter alia that since her route over-lapped by the Impugned opening of a new route from ...
Associated Stone Industries, Kota Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj146; 1996(2)WLN10
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of reassessment in respect of royalty for the period from 1-10-1974 to 30-9-1975 and 1-10-1975 to 30-9-1976 and also the validity of Rule 17(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for quarrying time stone as building stone for an area of 4810.16 acres in Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota for a period of 10 years commencing from 1-10-1959. The lease was renewed for a further period of 10 years from1-10-1969 and an agreement was executed in which it was contemplated that the petitioner would pay Rs. 3/- per hundred sft. treating the minor mineral to be excavated i.e. time stone as building stone. The petitioner was making the payment on the basis of the agreement entered into and even initial assessment was framed accordingly.3. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »