Rajasthan Court April 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.
Nirmal Kumar Vs. R.S.E.B. Falna and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC396; 1999(1)WLN504
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Petitioner Nirmal Kumar had initially filed this writ petition through his learned Counsel Shri R.S. Sharma, which was straightaway admitted by my learned brother V.G. Palshikar, J. on 14.7.1998 and notices were ordered to be issued. On stay petition No. 666/98 filed in this writ petition on the same day i.e. on 14.7.1998, notice was ordered to be issued and meanwhile all Further proceedings were stayed. Mr. K.C. Samdaria, learned Counsel has later on filed power on behalf of the petitioner in place of learned Counsel Shri R.S. Sharma. In spite of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court in his favour, the petitioner sent registered application dated 26.2.1999 addressed to the learned Chief Justice of this Court making serious allegations in it and praying for early hearing of the matter.2. Today, name of Mr. R.S. Sharma was shown for the petitioner by the office instead of Mr. K.C. Samdaria, who had later on filed his power in this matter. However, Mr. Samdaria was...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1027Raj; 1998WLC(Raj)UC327
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot on the question of limitation as well as on merits. Mr. Chhangani appears for the respondents. 2. As the appeal could not be filed within time due to personal reasons of the counsel, we are inclined to condone the delay. We, therefore, heard the matter on merits for admission. 3. We do not find any reason to interfere with the detailed and reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge. In the circumstances of the case, there is nothing wrong in continuing the departmental enquiry against the appellant during the pendency of a criminal prosecution against him. The Court of enquiry in the criminal trial and the domestic enquiry is not entirely identical and the standards of it also in both these enquiries differ. We are, therefore, in perfect agreement with the learned single Judge and find no force in this appeal on merits. 4. The appeal is dismissed....
Bhagirath Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4237
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. Accused petitioner Bhagirath Singh was convicted by learned Additional Munsif and Medical Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh Junction for offence under Section 279 and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment and to one year's simple imprisonment with, a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 304A, IPC by his judgment dated 2-6-1994. He preferred appeal which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh on 3-2-1999, hence this revision has been filed.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and perused the record.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Munshi Ram appeared at police station Hanumangarh Junction 11-7-1990 and reported that at about 2.00 p.m. his son Navin Kumar went to picture hall. Navin Kumar went to a tea vender's shop an...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaroop Chandra JaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: I(1999)ACC521; I(2000)ACC205; 1999ACJ1329; 1999WLC(Raj)UC412
Naolekar and Tewari, JJ.1. This appeal is being filed by the insurance company against the order of enhancement of compensation. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for respondents that the appeal filed by the assurance company against enhancement of the awarded amount is not maintainable as the defence available to the assurance company is limited. In Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998 ACJ 513 (SC), it has been held by the Apex Court that the insurance company when impleaded as a party by the court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain order in writing from the Tribunal which should be a reasoned order.2. Unless the procedure provided under Section 170 of the Act is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it...
Smt. Manju Devi Chauhan Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC162; 1999(1)WLN499
B.J. Shethna, J.1. An unfortunate young widow has to wait for justice for as many as 12 long years. The respondent is Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.), which is a mighty institution by itself. This legal battle is between David and Goliath.2. The petitioner has become widow in her young age of 30 years. On the death of her late husband Jaswant Kumar Chauhan, who died oh 10th September, 1982, at the young age of only 36 years, leaving behind him his young widow and two minor children, a son and a daughter, aged only 10 and 4 years respectively. Shri Jaswant Kumar took Life Insurance Policy of Rs. 51,000/-, for which the proposal was made on 22.10.1980, which was accepted by the LIC on 20th January, 1981 and the Policy was also issued later on in favour or Shri Jaswant Kumar. He paid first premium of Rs. 1494/- on 29.12.1980, by nominating his wife Smt. Manju Devi - the present petitioner as the sole nominee. Next premium was also paid on 20th January, 1982. Unfortunately, Ja...
Smt. Mathura Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC342; 1999(1)WLN502
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This is 4th bail application filed by the petitioner, who is a lady accused. It is stated at the bar by the learned Counsel Shri Vyas for the petitioner that petitioner is in jail since 19.12.1996 i.e. for almost two and a half years. The evidence of prosecution witness is already over. In this 4th bail application, bail is prayed for by the petitioner on the ground that she wants to examine the defence witnesses in support of her defence to show that she had not made extrajudicial confession before the members of the Gram Panchayat. Reliance was placed on a reported judgment of this Court (Hon'ble N.L. Tiberwal, J. (as he then was) in case of Ishab Khan v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991 (2) R.L.R. page 758. That was also a case of murder under Section 302 IPC, where the petitioner accused was in jail since the registration of the offence and the accused alleged to have made extra judicial confession before the members of the Panchayat and to controvert that evi...
Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2622
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J. 1. Petitioner Ram Singh was convicted for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar vide his judgment dated 7-2-1994. Appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar by his judgment dated 20-6-1998. This revision was preferred and the sentence of petitioner was suspended. Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the revision came up for hearing on 23-3-1999. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. A revision can be decided without hearing the counsel who has chosen not to appear, as in revisions Court can itself see the record without his assistance or assistance of the accused petitioner.2. The memo of revision does not mention any ground of illegality committed by the trial Court or the appellate Court. What the revision mentions is that the petitioner has not been given benefit of probation and no special reasons have ...
Prabhulal Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC135; 1999(1)WLN497
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a revision against the order of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur dated 2.1.1998 by which he ordered the Head Quarter of RSEB that it may obtain sanction against the accused petitioner. He also directed that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or a writ may be filed to obtain, or it was free to take any course of action according to law in order to obtain sanction sanction against the accused petitioner. He refused to accept the final report on the ground that the sanction was not granted by Competent Authority.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.3. Facts may be narrated in brief. Prabhulal Gaur was Junior Accountant in Treasury Office of Barmer. His duty was to pass bills of various departments. It is alleged that he demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- from Bhera Ram complainant. On 22.1.1994 he obtained this amount at 3.50 P.M. and was caught red handed in a raid organised by Rajas...
Mohd. Idaris Vs. Abdul Hai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1999
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN481
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant revision has been filed against the order dated 9.9.1997 of the executing court whereby objections of the petitioner preferred under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97, CPC were dismissed.2. In view of Order 21 Rule 103, CPC the impugned order amounts to a decree therefore I propose to deal with the instant petition treating it as appeal.3. Admittedly the decree dated 13.5.1997 was passed in favour of the decree holder in a suit instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963. The decree holder sought execution of the said decree by filing execution petition seeking restoration of possession of the shop from where he was dispossessed on 17.9.1990 by the judgment debtor without due process of law. 4. Before the executing court the petitioner submitted objection petition with the averments that the title of the shop vests in Mst. Fatima Begum who had purchased the property through registered deed dated 14.10.1981 from Smt. Gopali Devi Jhalani...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›