Rajasthan Court February 1998 Judgments
Om Prakash Vs. Chhotelal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3106; 1998(3)WLC311
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge acquitting the accused of the offences with which he was charged.2. The accused was tried for the charges mentioned against him in the judgment and the learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record recorded the finding of acquittal by the impugned order. It is this order which is assailed in the present revision petition on the grounds mentioned in the revision petition.3. The position in criminal jurisprudence in relation to acquittal is established since long. Our jurisprudence which is Anglosaxon Jurisprudence, believes in innocence of the accused till he is found guilty of charges framed against him beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt lies squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution or the complainant, as the case may be and wherever there is failure on the part of the Prosecuting Agency to discharge this burden, acc...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Mazid and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ1179
J.C. Verma, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed by the insurance company, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', dated 29.5.1992 by which the M.A.C.T. had awarded compensation of Rs. 95,000 in the case of Appeal No. 135 of 1993 and Rs. 75,000 in Appeal No. 43 of 1993. The claim applications were filed before the M.A.C.T. because of the accident occurred on 9.5.1989 at 5.00 a.m. when Abdul Rahim and his brother Abdul Mazid going on a bullock-cart were hit near Pharsia by the bus No. RNP 2964 coming from behind as a result of which Abdul Rahim died at the spot and Abdul Mazid sustained grievous injuries of fracture and shortening of leg by one and a half inch. 30 per cent disability had been caused to Abdul Mazid. After leading the evidence the Tribunal had come to the finding that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus involved in the case. This finding of rash and negligent d...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Veer Alias Bhola Vs. Hari Kishan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ21
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the same award and the same accident, therefore, they are decided by this common judgment.2. It is stated that the claimant Vishnu Veer alias Bhola (appellant of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 854 of 1994 and the respondent No. 1 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1033 of 1994) and his other friends were standing near old bus station in Deeg, suddenly, bus No. RRA 2222 driven by Ramavtar (respondent No. 3 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 854 of 1994 and respondent No. 2 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1033 of 1994) rashly and negligently hit the claimant due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries and his right leg was amputated. The claimant filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Deeg (for short 'the Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal vide its award dated 30.5.1994, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,52,000 against Hari Kishan and Ramji Lal, owners of the bus (appellants in Appeal No. 1033 of 1994 a...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsiram Agarwal Vs. Manjinder Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ988
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Harbans Kaur and claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed a claim petition on account of the death of Avatar Singh in an accident that took place on 20.9.1985. The appellant is the owner of the offending truck No. RNE 1423 and the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are the driver and insurer of the said truck. During the proceedings of the claim petition, Harbans Kaur has died and the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 pursued the claim petition. It has been alleged that the deceased Avatar Singh was going in his own truck which had full load of bananas from Indore to Amritsar. On 20.9.1985 at about 6.00 a.m. near Baroni Police Station, another truck bearing No. RNE 1423 came from the opposite direction and hit the truck of the deceased on the wrong side of the road resulting in severe injuries to Avatar Singh, who died in consequence thereof. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short 'the Tribunal') vide its award dated 10.3.1992 held that the accident was the resu...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN142
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the orders dated 3.6.1990 (Anx. 1), 28.4.1990 (Anx. 2) and 28.9.1995 (Anx. 3).2. The facts stated in the writ petition are that Akura Ram Meghwal was Gair Khatedar tenant of the land measuring 37.14 Bighas of land in village Rajasar, now Chak 5 M.D. He sold this land to one Naresh Chandra on 18.5.1963. Naresh Chandra in his turn sold this land to petitioner Babu Singh on 24.5.1970 by registered sale deed who is in possession of the land since then. The proceedings under Section 175 were initiated against the petitioner on 2.2.1974 but the Assistant Collector dismissed the application vide dated 22.9.1977 on the ground that the application was lime barred. Appeal taken against that order before the Revenue Appellate Authority was pending. During revenue campaign on 3.6.1989 Amari w/o Akuraram made an application before the Assistant Collector. Anoopgarh that the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN136
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The controversy in both these cases falls within a very narrow compass as the main relief, which the petitioners have sought in these writ petitions, has been granted to them by the respondents during the pendency of these writ petitions.2. The petitioners were working as the Deputy Directors in different wings of the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Rajasthan and they were asked to look-after the additional work of the Joint Directors for some period in the year 1992. For the said period, the petitioner in the first writ petition was granted 5% of his the then existing pay as the additional allowance under Rules 35 and 50 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules, 1951') vide order dated 30.10.1993. Subsequently, the petitioner was asked to look-after the work of Deputy Director in addition to his own duties from 20.8.1993 as is evident from the order dated 16.8.1993 contained in Annexure. Rule 3 to the petition and for that...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Choudhary Constructions
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj123
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act') against the order and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner in civil misc. case No. 40/94 modifying the award passed by the sole Arbitrator on 15-1-1994.2. The officer, after presentation of this appeal, computed the period of limitation and made a report that the appeal was barred by time by 79-days.3. Faced with this dilemma the appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay. It was stated in the application that the delay caused in filing the appeal with delay is neither deliberate nor intentional. It was averred that much procedure is involved for taking sanction from the State Government and the matter is routed through many levels and the papers pass in the hands of many officers. The procedure involved has resulted into delay. Since a heavy stakes of the Government are involved, this appe...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Ram Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj148
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed for the issue of writ or direction to the respondents to interview the petitioner and grant him admission to M.B.B.S. Course.2. The case for the petitioner is that he appeared in Pre-Medical Test for admission in the M.B.B.S. Course in June, 1997. He secured 859 marks and was placed in the reserve list. He was not called for interview. However, he came to know through his friends, who had secured less marks than the petitioner, that they had been interviewed on 4-11-1997. He therefore rushed to Jaipur and contacted the Principal. S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur on 5-11-1997. He was told that as he did not appear in the interview on 4-11-1997 he could not be admitted to the course, it was further informed to him that a notice was published in the Rajasthan Patrika on 25-10-1997 to the effect that the candidates securing marks between 854 to 861 were to appear for interview on 4-11-1997. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal and anr. Vs. Khiv Raj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj98
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. The defendants-petitioners have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 4-12-1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Degana by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed on 30-1-1997 on behalf of the petitioners.2. The plaintiff-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the deceased-defendant-Govin,d Ram and defendant-respondent No. 3 Moolchand. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant-Govind Ram expired on 29-7-1993. The plaintiff-respondents' No. 1 and 2 filed an application purporting to be under Order 22, Rule 4, C.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That application was allowed. It may be stated here that in that suit, an ex parte order was already passed against the defendants-Govind Ram and Moolchand because their counsel Hariram pleaded no instructions on their behalf;3-4. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Daily Navajyoti Vs. Appointed Authority U/S. 17(1) of Working Journali ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ705Raj; 1998(2)WLC710
Rajendra Saxena, J. 1. This special appeal has been directed against the order dated March 7, 1996 passed by the learned S.B. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 300/1996, whereby appellant's writ petition was dismissed holding that the order dated November 2, 1995 (Ann. 7) passed by the Authority did not give any cause of action to the petitioner to file the writ petition.2. A brief resume of the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal can be recapitulated in a short compass. On April 24, 1995 Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma (Respondent No. 2) filed a claim (Ann.3) under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (briefly the Act) before the Authority (Respondent No. 1) with the averments that he was working as a Working Journalist with the daily Navajyoti News Paper Establishment (briefly establishment), that he retired on March 30, 1993 after serving for a period of 30 years, that the terms and conditions of his service were gov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »