Rajasthan Court December 1998 Judgments

R.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. Smt. Sayar Bai and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2000ACJ1302; AIR1999Raj96

Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This is an appeal against the award given by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated 12-9-96 in favour of respondents as against the appellant for Rs. 2,12,000/-.2. Facts of the case are that deceased -Banshilal who was the husband of Smt. Sayar Bai and lather of other claimants was travelling by bus of appellant bearing No. RJ-14-1102 from Udaipur to Jodhpur on 23-11-91. The said bus at about 2.45 a.m. fell down in Ranakpur valley with the result that Shri Banshilal sustained injuries and succumbed to them. The bus was being driven by Kishore Singh rashly and negligently. He was the driver under employment of the appellant. Respondents-claimants had claimed compensation of Rs. 5,40,000/-.3. The reply of the appellant was that all of a sudden steering of the vehicle failed and, therefore, bus went out of control of the driver and fell down in the valley. It was pleaded that Kishore Singh was driving the bus with slow speed and was very careful bu...

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sayar Bai and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1(2002)ACC264

Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This is an appeal against the award given by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated 12.9.1996 in favour of respondents as against the appellant for Rs. 2,12,000/-.2. Facts of the case are that deceased Banshilal who was the husband of Sayar Bai and father of other claimants was travelling by bus of appellant bearing No. RJ-14-1102 from Udaipur to Jodhpur on 23.11.1991. The said bus at about 2.45 a.m. fell down in Ranakpur valley with the result that Banshilal sustained injuries and succumbed to them. The bus was being driven by Kishore Singh rashly arid negligently. He was the driver under employment of the appellant. Respondents-claimants had claimed compensation of Rs. 5,40,000/-.3. The reply of the appellant was that all of a sudden steering of the vehicle failed and, therefore, bus went out of control of the driver and fell down in the valley. It was pleaded that Kishore Singh was driving the bus with slow speed and was very careful but there...

Saddiq Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1999CriLJ1985

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order and judgment of conviction passed on 25-5-95 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in sessions case No. 104/90 convicting the appellant accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life, the appellant accused named above has preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in memo of appeal. He assails the order of conviction as unsustainable in law on several grounds raised by the learned counsel during the course of the arguments.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, we have scrutinised the record of the case and have reappreciated the evidence on record.3. The prosecution story stated briefly is that; the accused Saddiq Mohammed was married to one Shamim from Jahajpur and there were differences in the marital life, with the result that Shamim was staying with her mother Smt. Bano. The accused Saddiq Mohammed wanted to take Shamim to the ...

Sagir Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1999CriLJ1705; 1999(1)WLC638

1. At about 5 pm. on September 6,1996, Smt. Kamla deceased was brought to the casualty ward of the JLN Hospital, at Ajmer. She was having burn injuries on her person. The House Staff in the Casualty Ward informed PW/ 1 Dr. P. K. Saraswat, Medical Jurist at that hospital to examine the injured Smt. Kamla. Dr. Saraswat examined the deceased for her injuries at about 5.40 and 5.50 pm. He found superficial burns on her face, neck, front chest, patches on back, upper limb and patches on lower limb. Dr. Saraswat further noted singing of scalp hair, eye brow & eye lashes of the deceased. Smell of kerosene oil was coming from the body of the deceased. Dr. Saraswat, therefore, sent the deceased to the family surgical ward of the said hospital. Simultaneously, he informed Biram Singh, AST, at Police Station Christanganj because it was a burn injury case. It is alleged that on receipt of wireless message from the hospital PW/12 Panna Lal, who was Station House Officer at Police Station, Christang...

Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1999Raj177; 1999(1)WLC197

ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Paota, Panchayat Samiti, Virat Nagar, Jaipur. On certain allegations a no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner on 14-8-1998 and a meeting was scheduled to be held on 18-9-1998. Initially, there was a stay order in favour of the petitioner which was vacated on 7-10-1998.2. Another notice of no-confidence was issued on 13-10-1998 for a meeting to be held on 23-10-1998. The petitioner challenges the notice dated 13-10-1998 (Annexure-1), by which the S.D.O., Kotputli, was directed to preside over the meeting by the S.D.O., Kotputli and also Annex-ure-2, the resolution passed on 23-10-1998 whereby the no-confidence motion of the petitioner was passed.3. It is one of the contentions of the petitioner that under Sub-section (4) of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 in a meeting where the no-confidence motion is to be moved, the meeting is to be presided over by the competent authority, provi...

Khetri Vikas Samiti Vs. University of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1999Raj269; 1999(3)WLC337

ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner Khetri Vikas Samiti a registered society, had set up a Pharmacy College known as Sanjeevani College of Pharmaceutical Sciences. Khetri (hereinafter called as the College) for conducting Bachelor of Pharmacy and Diploma of Pharmacy Courses. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order Annexure-13 whereby the University of Rajasthan, respondent No. 1 had issued a letter dated 20-11-1998 extending/ awarding provisional affiliation in favour of number of institutions (about nine) for the sessions mentioned against each of such institutions but not taking any decision so far the institution of the petitioner college is concerned. A prayer has been made that because of the reason that the action of the respondent No. 2. in withholding the extension of the affiliation of the petitioner college by the impugned order Annexure-13 be declared illegal, invalid and unconstitutional, who had held the Entrance Test for admission of the students in various institu...

Enforcement Inspector, Civil Supplies Dept. Vs. Vimal Kumar and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1999CriLJ1521; 1999(2)WLC238

ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. On inspection of business premises of Vimal Kumar, who was the sole Proprietor of M/s. Jhandi Prasad Parmeshwar Lal. Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, dealing in kerosene oil, the Enforcement Inspector found the petitioner storing kerosene oil in huge quantity at his petrol pump and to have committed serious irregularities in maintaining the accounts. The Enforcement Inspector was of the opinion that the petitioner had stored kerosene oil in order to mix the same will petrol. The Enforcement Inspector, therefore, lodged FIR No. 222/94 against the petitioner at Police Station Chirawa for offence committed under the Essential Commodities Act. He had earlier found the applicant selling petrol after mixing kerosene therein and lodged FIR No. 336 of 1994 with Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu in that behalf. Any way, on investigation of FIR No. 222/94, the Station House Officer/Investigating Officer of the case prepared charge-sheet No. 44 on 14-5-95. But before he could hav...

Prabhudayal Vs. Susheel Kumar and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1999(2)WLC555; 1999(1)WLN30

Arun Madan, J.1. This first appeal has been preferred by Prabhu Dayal (landlord) defendant-appellant against the judgment & decree dated 8.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3. Jaipur City, Jaipur by which Civil Suit for declaration filed by Sushil Kumar (alleged tenant) plaintiff- respondent has been decreed.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass are that suit for eviction was filed by appellant Prabhudayal (landlord) against Satyanarain and Omprakash, who are arrayed as proforma defendants-respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the present appeal for their eviction from a shop/showroom which was let out by the appellant to the latter, situated at Plot No. 4, near Truck Stand, Transport Nagar, Jaipur. In that eviction Suit No. 129/93 the case of the appellant was that on 1.7.1980 as per rent note dated 10.7.1980 he had let out the suit premises to Satyanarain and Omprakash who started business of automotive parts under the name and style of M/s Delhi...

Commercial Taxes Officer, Vs. Goodwill Paint Industries

Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan

1. This application for revision filed before the Rajasthan High Court was transferred to this Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. It arises in a matter under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("the CST Act") and is directed against the judgment dated July 3, 1993 in Appeal No. 36/91/ST/Alwar, of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (as "the Rajasthan Tax Board" hereinafter, referred to as "the Board", was then known). The Board had by its impugned judgment accepted the appeal of the present non-petitioner-dealer and set aside the order of the first appellate authority dated February 23, 1990 upholding the order dated August 17, 1990 of the assessing authority (AA) made under Section 9, the CST Act read with Section 16(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (the RST Act), inter alia, holding that certain transactions claimed by the dealer to be branch transfers were actually inter-State sales, and, therefore, levied tax under the CST Act, in...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Girdhari Lal

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1999Raj106

ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J. 1. The order under challenge in writ petitions is the decision of the designated authority which has been set aside in another writ petition. For those reasons the decision cannot be sustained in these writ petitions as well. Therefore, the order impugned in these writ petition dated 19-12-1997 is set aside. However, in these two writ petitions a peculiar circumstance has emerged i.e. the arbitrator has not been able to adjudicate regarding the arbitration matter referred to him in relation to Appendix-A because before he could decide the matter interlocutory orders were passed firstly by the designated authority and secondly by this Court restraining the arbitrator from deciding the arbitration matter in relation to Appendix-A. 2. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that with the retirement of the officer the mandate of the arbitrator has been terminated, therefore, he cannot now decide the question nor the designated authority has a right to extend the tim...