Rajasthan Court January 1999 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.
Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur Vs. Miss. Priya Soloman
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj102; 1999(2)WLC110; 1999(1)WLN13
ORDERA.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed against the order dated 6-11-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (South). Udaipur, rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the lower Court has committed a mistake of law in passing the impugned order dated 6-11-1998 inasmuch as the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., in view of the statements made by the plaintiff himself in the plaint. 4. Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C. reads-- 'where the suits appears on the statement in the plaint to he barred by any law'. A bare perusal of Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C. shows that for the purpose of invoking this clause the suit must be barred by any law in view of the statements made by the plaintiff himself in the plaint. In the instant case. I am afraid that the requirement of Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C. ...
Kanak Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1091; 1999WLC(Raj)UC300
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. The petitioner is facing trial in Cr. Case No. 110/85(2/82) under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta. Through this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioner has prayed to quash the proceedings oh the ground of delay in trial.2. The charge-sheet was filed on 24-11-82. Charge was framed on 25-2-86. P.W. 1 was examined on 28-7-86 i.e. after six years of the institution of the case. Last witness P.W. 21 was examined on 9-8-94 and his statement was kept reserved. Thereafter, order for de novo trial was passed on 11-7-95. Hence the substance of the charge was again stated on 19-7-95. Witness was not present on 19-8-95. The petitioner filed this petition and the proceedings were stayed by this Court vide order dated 15-1 -96. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner has faced the trial for the last 14 years till the proceedings were stayed by this Court vide order...
Bhagwan Singh Meena Vs. Jai Kishan Tiwari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: 1999ACJ1200
D.C. Dalela, J.1. None has appeared for the respondents. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been heard.2. This is an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation, awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. In this case, the appellant-claimant sustained severe and serious injuries on account of the accident. His right leg had to be amputated. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000 as pecuniary damages and Rs. 1,30,000 as non-pecuniary damages. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 has been awarded. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), has laid down as under:Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in te...
Vibha Seth and ors. Vs. Jai Kishan Tiwari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ614; 1999WLC(Raj)UC709
D.C. Dalela, J.1. This is an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,69,320 for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident at the age of 30. The learned Tribunal has also assessed the age of the deceased as 30 at the time of the accident. According to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier at this age should be 18.2. The learned Tribunal has assessed the gross income of the deceased at the time of the accident as Rs. 2,056. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while assessing the value of dependency, a higher gross income should be estimated having regard to future advancement in the career and increase in the earning of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has estimated the gross income of the deceased by doubling the existing gross income...
Sua Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC76; 1999(1)WLN1
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Relying upon the three judgments of this court learned Counsel Shri Kalla for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order Annex.3 dated 31.10.1996 passed by the respondent No. 2, Addl. Collector, Pali dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners be set aside, in support of this submission, learned Counsel Shri Kalla has relied upon (i) Single Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Kanhaiya Lal v. Addl Collector. Kota and Ors. reported in 1993 (1) R.L.R. page 356, (ii) Division Bench Judgment in case of Kailash Raj v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1984 W.L.N. (UC) page 175 and (iii) an unreported Judgment of Division Bench delivered on 14.9.1988 in case of Dhanrqj and Anr. v. Addl Collector, Ganganagar and Ors. In case of Kanhaiya lal (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court refused to exercise his powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that court cannot interfere in such matter which would result in re...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Maganlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN3
B.J. Shethna, J.1. It is most unfortunate that without properly understanding the order passed by the courts below, none else but the State of Rajasthan has filed this petition through the Distt. Collector, Rajsamand, which is nothing but a sheer waste of the time of this Court and public money.2. By an order dated 26.2.1997, Revenue Appellate Authority has simply remanded the matter to the State Govt. for the purpose of allotment of land in question to the present respondent- original appellant, Mangilal. The same was challenged by way of appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was filed after the expiry of period of limitation. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 14.10.1997 (Annex.6) dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by period of limitation and no proper explanation was given to condone the delay in filing the appeal late by six months in an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the State and also dismissed it on the ground that the Reve...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›