Rajasthan Court May 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.
Shrinath Travel Agency Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj83; 2000(1)WLC376; 1999(1)WLN640
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Shrinath Travel Agency has prayed in this petition that the respondents be directed not to interfere in the operation of the vehicles by the petitioner under the permits granted to it as All India Tourist permit under the Motor Vehicles (All India Permits for Tourist Operators) Rules, 1993. It is further prayed that the respondents be restrained from illegally harassing the petitioner by illegal detention and seizure of the vehicles and to protect the life and property of the petitioner.2. The petitioner claims to be the holder of All India Tourist permits as a tourist-transport operator from the State of Rajasthan and also from the State of Gujarat and opted the Rajasthan State as one of the States to ply on the authorisation issued under the Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993 (in short, the Rules of 1993). The list of vehicles covered under the tourist-transport permits is annexed as Schedule A to ...
Mana Ram Vs. Secretary
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1474Raj; 2000WLC(Raj)UC54
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This appeal arises out of a claim for Workmen's compensation on account of employment injury suffered by the appellant. The only dispute is whether the injury was attributable to the wilful disobedience of the appellant to an order expressly given for the purpose of securing the safety of the workmen. It was alleged by the employer-respondent that despite instructions to the contrary the appellant attempted to clean the Machine in its running condition. Under proviso to Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 employer will have no liability to compensate because the injury was attributable to the wilful disobedience of the workman to an express order notified to all workmen. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation rejected the claim holding that the appellant had flouted the instructions which were displayed on a Hoarding by the employer.Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the record I do not find that the finding in this regard ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shanker
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ266; 1999(3)WLC263; 1999(1)WLN634
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dt. 19-12-78 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in sessions case No. 93/77, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal challenging the acquittal on several grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. The appeal was admitted in 1979.2. This appeal has come up for hearing today on 29-4-99. Leave to appeal was granted and appeal was admitted exactly twenty years ago on 20th April, 1979. While admitting the appeal, the accused was directed to be arrested and released on furnishing bail in the sum of Rs. 5000/-. The accused is on bail since then for last twenty years.3. Reasons for pendency of this appeal and appeals of this kind is required to be mentioned at this stage as it is only after twenty years thereabouts that this Court has reached the stage of taking up for consideration non-custodial appeals i.e. appeals where the accused person is not in custody either after convicti...
Shabnam Bano Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1410; 1999WLC(Raj)UC642
A.K. Parihar, J. 1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, respondent No. 1. The application was allowed by the above Tribunal vide order dated 8.1.1999. The respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as interim award to the petitioner and the cheque of the above amount was to be submitted before the Tribunal in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter on an application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal for handing over the cheque to the petitioner, the Tribunal asked the petitioner to file a succession certificate. The directions of the Tribunal asking the petitioner to file a succession certificate vide order dated 27.3.1999 is under challenge in the present writ petition.2. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record.3. In the claim petition itself the petitioner had specifically averred that she is the only successor...
Babulal S/O. Heera Lal Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1076Raj
S.V. Patil, C.J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a direction to the respondents to give them appointment or in the alternate, consider them for appointment as Fitters in the permanent cadre, they be treated as Fitters w.e.f. the date shown in their appointment orders Exhibits 1 to 3, they should be paid in the pay scale of Fitter w.e.f. the date of their appointment or to grant any other pay to which the petitioners are entitled. 3. The case of the petitioners in brief, as can be gathered from the writ petition is that they were appointed as trainees under Apprenticeship programme under Exhibits 1 to 3 on January 4, 1991, January 19, 1991 and January 4, 1991 respectively. They completed their apprenticeship programme from theIndustrial Training Institute, Government of Rajasthan, Barmer in July, 1991. The services of the employees who are working in the workshops and depots of the respondents are governed by the Rajasth...
Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sh. Nathu Lal JaIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj109; 1999(1)WLN628
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant revision has been preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner impugning the order dated April 15, 1999 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jaipur City whereby her application under Order 18, Rule 2 read with Order 26, Rule 1 and Section 151, CPC was rejected.2. Brief resume of the facts is that the plaintiff-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant-respondents (for short the defendants). The plaintiff on March 26, 1992 executed 'General Power of Attorney' in favour of Nand Kishore Saraf to take up all the proceedings on her behalf in the aforesaid suit. Nand Kishore Suraf thereafter got examined himself as P.W. 1 in the capacity of the plaintiff. Evidence of the defendants was closed on December 11, 1998 and the case was posted for final arguments. The plaintiff on January 6, 1999 moved an application under Order 18, Rule 2 read with Order 26, Rule 1 and Section 151, C...
Bhanwar Lal Mishra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC325; 1999(3)WLC584
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard.By way of the instant transfer petition filed under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner who is the father of the deceased Smt. Rajkumari has sought transfer of proceedings pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Siker for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A, Indian Penal Code to the equivalent Court of competent jurisdiction at Jodhpur on the ground inter alia that from the very beginning, the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 had indulged in cruel behaviour towards his late daughter Smt. Rajkumari. The allegations are regarding unreasonable dowry demand made by them. In para 13 of the petitioner, it has been contended as under :'That a fair and impartial,enquiry/trial cannot be had at the Court at Siker because the petitioner cannot produce himself and his other family members in the Court as witnesses due to the threatening of the accused and the accused are trying to influence the Police, Bar and witnesses etc. at S...
Mohd. Sadiq Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4043
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-3-82 passed by the Special Judge, Jodhpur convicting the accused appellant of offence under Section 161,I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo 1 month's S. I. on each count.2. The prosecution case is that on 6-9-76 PW/1 Tejaram submitted a written complaint before the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption), Jaipur stating that he is a resident of village Dabaria. After the death of his father he wanted to get 62 bigha of land mutated in his name and in the name of his 3 other brothers. He has submitted an application in that regard before the Patwari, Basroli. He had put the thumb impression thereon. He enquired about the progress in the said matter from the Patwari on 4-9-76, on which, he told him that he will required to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- as bribe for doi...
State Vs. Devendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC393; 1999(1)WLN631
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By way of instant application, the prosecution, through the State of Rajasthan has sought indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling the order dated 20th April, 1998 passed in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 299/97 titled as Devendra Kumar v. State, on the grounds interalia-(1) that the impugned order is contrary to facts and material available on the record and therefore, it is necessary in the interest of justice to recall/modify the same,(2) that the statutory provisions of Section 167(5) of Cr.P.C. have been applied in the instant case in an apparent error on face looking to the facts and circumstances of the case because the aforesaid statutory provision applies in summon cases, while in the instant case the mater which was pending against the petitioner before the trial court was not a summons case, though it has been canceled by the learned Counsel during the course ...
Smt. Manorama Devi and anr. Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC591; 1999(1)WLN627
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. Five Lacs as compensation on account of negligence of the Doctors of the State Government in not performing the sterilization operation properly and due to which petitioner No. 1 in spite of operation, got pregnant.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show any Rule, Regulation, or Circular in this regard by which this Court can quantify the amount of compensation in such matters. Shri Rastogi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that it is total discretion of the Court to grant any compensation to the person concerned.3. After having gone through the material on record and having considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that using of such discretion will open up a very unhealthy Pandora of litigation before this Court. This Court under its writ jurisdiction cannot quantify the amount. The same can be decided only after taking evidence of both the sides by a co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »