Rajasthan Court February 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mumtaj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC107; 2001ACJ374; 1999(2)WLC311
Shiv K. Sharma, J. 1. The appellant insurance company seeks to challenge the award dated 9.12.1998 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dausa, whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,03,000 was awarded to the claimants-respondents in Claim Petition No. 221 of 1996.2. The claim petition was instituted by the husband and three minor children of deceased Kamrunisha who died on 17.4.96 in an accident while travelling in jeep No. RJC 602 from Ajmer to her village. The appellant insurance company in its written statement pleaded that it was the duty of the claimants to prove that the driver of the jeep at the time of accident was having valid driving licence. It was also averred that the owners of the jeep used it in violation of conditions of the insurance policy by allowing passengers to travel in it. The Tribunal framed issue No. 3 on the basis of objections raised by the appellant company.3. Mr. Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that owners of th...
Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj268; 1999(1)WLN292
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the letter dated 4-6-93 (Annex. 4) issued by the Union of India to the Secretary to the State of Rajasthan, Department of Mines, Jaipur and also impugned order dated 28-1-1997 (Annex. 3) passed by the State of Rajasthan.2. Way back on 9-7-86, the Secretary to the State of Rajasthan, Department of Mines, Jaipur was requested to take necessary measures to stop further expansion in the mining of asbestos. In view of that letter dated 9-7-86 issued by the Union of India to the Director, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur issued another letter dated 4-6-93 (Annex. 4) to the Secretary to the Stale of Rajasthan, Department of Mines, Jaipur directing not to grant any new lease or renewal of mining of asbestos of existing mining lease.3. The petitioner applied for renewal of his licence for mining of asbestos on 23-2-1995, but his renewal application was rejected by the State Govt. on 28-1-1997 (Annex. 3) on sever...
Moola Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj263; 2000(1)WLC99
ORDERB.J. Sheth, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 21 -3-88, Annex. 2, the order passed by the Superintending Engineer on29-1-91 (Annex. 3) and the impugned order passed by the Chief Engineer on 20-2-95 (Annex. 7). 2. Only one submission was made by the learned counsel Shri Purohit in this petition that the impugned order (Annex. 7) passed by the Chief Engineer is a non-speaking order, therefore, it may be set aside and matter be remanded to him with direction to pass speaking order. This submission of Mr. Purohit cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Chief Engineer was of the opinion that for the purpose of outer irrigation the Superintending Engineer passed the order. Thus, it cannot be said that it was a non-speaking order. It must be stated that the Chief Engineer was deciding the matter in second appeal wherein, he was not required to give detail reasons if he is concurring with the order pa...
Mana Ram and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj257; 1999(3)WLC364; 1998WLC(Raj)UC147; 1999(1)WLN289
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. Mana Ram and other 100 persons filed a joint 58 Civil Writ Petition No. 1451/ 97 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging challans dated 13-3-97 (Annexs. 5 to 9) issued by the Tehsildar for the payment of interest at the rate of 18% from the petitioners under Rule 17(8) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 amended in the year 1992 on the instalment amount, which was earlier stayed by this Court on 9-9-88 in Writ Petition No. 2963/88 (Annex. 3). 2. On 23-4-97 my learned brother P. P. Naolekar, J. directed the learned counsel Shri Purohit for the petitioner to pay Court-fee in respect of each petitioner separately (as earlier joint Court-fee was paid for all the petitioners) and the matter was ordered to be listed for admission only after payment of Court-fees for each petitioner. Accordingly, the Court-fee was paid by the learned counsel for ea...
Kesra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2625
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. All the five convicts preferred these appeals against their conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh on 30-3-1978 under various Sections of Indian Penal Code including 302 read with 149, IPC for which they were sentenced to life imprisonment. During the pendency of appeal, appellant-Veer Singh expired and consequently his appeal abated.2. Facts giving rise to these appeals may be narrated in brief. The complainant party and the accused-appellants were labourers. They used to dig earth. They were living in different tents, Kashmir Singh and Kesra used to bring liquor and sell the same to the labourers, Kashmir Singh, Vazir Singh, Laxman Singh and Mehanga Singh used to object. It is alleged that at about 10.00 p.m. on 23-2-1977 Laxman Singh who used to live with Kashmir Singh, Mehanga Singh and Vazir Singh went to the tent of the accused-appellants in order to demand the balance of amount of his wages which was only Rs. 15/-. He demand...
Sohan Singh Vs. Ram Nath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC624; 1999(1)WLN287
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.98 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar in civil misc. case No 14/95 Dula Ram v. Ramnath and Ors. whereby the application filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was rejected.3. The appellant's case is that the suit land was owned by Harnarr Singh and Harnam Singh had executed an agreement to sale in favour o1 the appellant. After the death of Harnam Singh, Jeet Kaur, Ram Nath and Jagir Singh succeeded to the estate left by Harnam Singh. Ramnatli (defendant No. 1, executed three agreements to sale in favour of the appellant and handed over the possession to the appellant in part performance of the contract of sale. It is also alleged by the appellant that Hardayal Singh (respondent No. 4) filed a suit for specific performance of contract to sale a...
Satyam Properties Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj276; 2000(1)WLC598; 1999(1)WLN281
B.J. Shethana, J. 1. In this group of petitions, though separate notices issued for the plots in question by the respondents are challenged, but the parties are the same and the points raised in these petitions are also same, therefore, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Before dealing with the submissions raised by the learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the petitioners in all these cases, I must state few important facts, which are as under :--'(i) The petitioner - Satyam Properties is the sole petitioner in all these petitions.(ii) The petitioner in all these petitions has challenged the impugned notice dated 18-11-1997 (Annex. 6) issued by the respondent No. 2, Collector (Stamps), Bhilwara calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount assessed, failing which the proceedings for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue be initiated against it. And, also the order dated 26/27-11-97 (Annex. 7) issued by the Tehsildar, Bhilwara calling upon the peti...
Surat Ram Gagrani Vs. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR406]; (1999)IILLJ1020Raj; 2000(1)WLC422
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Petitioner-Master has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated August 1, 1989 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Bhilwara-respondent No. 1 allowing the claim of respondent No. 2, Piru-workman awarding a sum of Rs. 24,000/- on the ground that it was an ex parte order. An application Annex-2 was made on November 20, 1990 by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award (Annex.-1). It was objected by the respondent No. 2, workman by his reply. The application for setting aside the ex parte award passed by the Authority was dismissed on September 20, 1991 (Annex-4.). The petitioner has challenged both the orders at Annex.-1 and Annex.- 4 respectively in this petition.2. The only submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was never served with a notice from the respondent No. 1, Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, therefore, no award could have been passed by the authority without due...
Jaipur Development Authority Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj240; 1999(2)WLC357; 1999(1)WLN114
1. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Shashi Jain, writ petitioner, is owner of plot No. 595 measuring 272 square yards situated in Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road. Jaipur. Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur where the plot of respondent No. 3 is situated, is an approved colony. She had deposited development charges at the rate of twenty-five rupees per square yards. The construction plan submitted by the respondent No. 3 was duly approved by the Jaipur Development Authority, the appellant, on 2-4-1985. When the plot was purchased and the permission was sought for for construction, a High Tension Line (HTL) of electricity was passing over the plot of the respondent No. 3. On an enquiry, she was informed by the Jaipur Development Authority that the HTL will be shifted along the road side. On 15th Dec. 1995 one Shri Sarvesh Jain received serious bum injuries on account of the HTL passing over the plot and the constructed building of the respondent No. 3 and thus a writ petition was filed by the respondent No...
Bhom Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC371; 1999(1)WLN276
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. In the instant petition, an application has been filed by applicant-petitioner on 29.10.1998 for restoring the said writ petition on its original number and hear it expeditiously as desired by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. The application came for orders on 10.11.1998 and learned Counsels for the respondents also put their appearance. On that date, Mr. Mridul was asked to explain as under what circumstances the application can be entertained at such a belated stage in absence of any explanation of delay and the applicant was directed to file an additional affidavit explaining the delay on his part. The matter was listed again on 14.12.1998 and on that day also, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties only on the ground of delay and laches, the case was adjourned for' 12.2.1999.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. The applicant was employed temporarily by the respondent All India Radio on the post of Assistant Engineer. On 12.2.1982, the applicant sought N...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »