Rajasthan Court April 2000 Judgments
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Jodhpur Vs. Shabnam and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC261; 2000(3)WLN382
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. (2). This appeal is directed against the interim award dated 14.11.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur u/S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 awarding an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents on no fault liability. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident took place on 02.07.1994 and on that day the amount payable u/S. ` of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an injury was a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. Regarding the amendment which came into force on 14.04.1994, whereby amount of compensation payable u/S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for an injury was enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this amendment cannot the applied retrospectively and, there-for, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur was not justified in awarding the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent u/S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ800; 2001(2)WLC632; 2000(3)WLN39
ORDERChauhan, J. (1). The cases, deal with here, have chequered history as there have been several rounds of litigation before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in different forms at different stages and also before this court in bail matters.(2). The instant criminal miscellaneous applications have been filed for quashing the complaint (C.R. No. 403/1996) registered at the Police Station, Kotwali, Pali, as also the further investigation pertaining to offences under Sections 120B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 368, 388, 482 I.P.C. and Sections 17, 58(1)(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the 'N.D.P.S. Act').(3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that on 17.10.1996, one Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, a Practising Advocate filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, alleging that shop No. 6 in Vardhaman Market, Pali, owned by Smt. Amri Bai w/o Shri Jayant Raj had been taken...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2899; 2000(2)WLC608
ORDERMisra, J.1. While the validity of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') which bars entertainment of application of anticipatory bail on behalf of any person who is accused of having committed an offence under the Act of 1989 has been upheld by the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramkrishna Balotia (1), the courts at the district level as also the High Courts are often enough confronted with a variety of situations in cases where even a plain reading of the First Information Report (FIR) does not disclose commission of any offence under the Act of 1989 and still it rejects applications for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of its maintainability merely because the case has been registered under the Act of 1989. Such situations are not isolated ones and have been encountered by various High Courts in India which is evident from th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Hem Raj Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC716; 2000(2)WLN95
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is a suo moto contempt proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', registered by order of this court dated 5.2.1999 against contemner respondent Hemraj, for contemptuous statement made by him against the 'Judiciary' in his representation dated 23.12.1998 addressed to Hon'ble Chief Minister and Law Minister of the State of Rajasthan. In response to the notice, he appeared before this court on 7.4.1999. On his request, the court directed the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) to supply the copy of the order dated 5.2.1999 and such other relevant documents as may be available in the proceedings and are claimed by him. He was also permitted to make inspection of the proceedings and demand such copies as are necessary for him to defend himself in the contempt proceedings. The registry complied with the order dated 7.4.1999. The respondent has not made any grievance with respect to compliance of the order dated 7.4.1...
Tag this Judgment!L.Rs. of Karan Singh Vs. Anirudh Sen
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2000
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC702; 2000(2)WLN128
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This second appeal was filed by the judgment debtor against whom a decree has been passed by the trial court against the order of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dt. 17.9.1992 holding that the appeal filed by him is barred by seven days and there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.3. The contention of the appellants has been that the lower Appellate Court has erred in holding the appeal to be barred by time inasmuch as it has not rightly computed the period of limitation for filing the appeal in the present case in accordance with the provisions of limitation act keeping in view Section 12 of the said Act.4. Mr. Chhangani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent urged that order rejecting appeal is barred by time is not a decree, and therefore, no appeal is maintainable. For this learned Counsel relied on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in Chhelaram v. Manak (RLW 1997 (1) 264).5. Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Lal Vs. Rukmani Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2000
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC540; 2000(3)WLN163
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel.2. This appeal is under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 4.5.1991 in Claim Case No. 19 of 1983. The claim was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 arising out of an accident which took place on 12.7.1983 on the highway between Bhilwara and Ajmer within the municipal limits of Bhilwara, which resulted in death of Radheshyam, whose dependents six in number were the claimants who included the widow of the deceased,three dependent children and both parents. Parents have died since the pendency of this case. A claim for a sum of Rs. 7,15,000 was lodged against the present appellant, the insurer United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras with whom the vehicle involved in the accident has been insured, and Mathuralal, alleged to be the Driver of the vehicle. In the application it has been stated that the claimants do not know who the driver was but had said that the respondent No. 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Foundry Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(NULL)434
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.:This appeal by assessee for asst. yr. 1990-91 is directed against the order of CIT(A), Jodhpur, dt. 3-11-1993, whereby he sustained the trading addition of Rs. 26,363 disallowance of Rs. 15,498 out of motor vehicle expenses and depreciation and Rs. 5,000 out of telephone expenses.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records.3. Ground No. 1 has not been passed by the learned authorised representative during arguments, and so the same is dismissed accordingly.4. Ground No. 2 disputes the trading addition of Rs. 26,363. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the entire sales are' rnade to Railway department and are vouched. He has contended that the purchases are also vouched though there are some Kacha vouchers as the assessee makes purchases of raw material for its foundry from Kabadies who corne there itself and make the sales. He has also contended that it is not practically possible for assessee to...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Auto and Bearing Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN207
Rajesh Balia, J.1. A short point has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Revenue in this revision which is at the instance of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Check Post Mavla, Abu Road.2. Vehicle No. RJ 19/G-2253 was checked by the petitioner at the Check-post Mavla. The vehicle was carrying two cartons of bearing. The person in charge of the vehicle could not produce any documents. Neither the bill nor the builty were accompaning the goods. A notice was issued by the Assessing Authority under Section 22-A(7) of the Act stating that the goods have been found without documents, and in the absence of bill, on enquiry from the market by the inspector the goods were valued at Rs. 73,480 for the purpose of effecting seizure. In reply, the assessee submitted that transporter was furnished with bill and builty but the transporter has not delivered the bill and builty to the driver of the vehicle, hence he could not produce same at the time of checking. However, bill from the sel...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN161
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The petitioner has filed this review petition alleging that certain aspects of the case alleged by him have not been considered by the Division Bench and it has finally decided the case.2. Earlier the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection regarding the competence of this bench hearing this review petition singly. That objection was overruled by the order dated 31.3.2000. Hence, this review petition was heard by me sitting singly because the other Hon'ble Judge continuing the bench Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Shivaraj v. Patil, as he then was, was not available for hearing.3. The petitioner in the review petition has argued that he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in Arvind Dattatraya Dhanda v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1997 S.C.C. (L & S) 1437 and he has also relied upon the decisions of Section Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. : (1966)ILLJ458SC and Express News Papers v. U.O.I. : AIR1986SC872 . These cases were not ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Nirmal Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN147
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is second appeal filed by the State against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge Raisingh Nagar on 9.7.1993 reversing the judgment and decree passed by thedicial Magistrate Firt Class, Raisingh Nagar on 10.10.1991. As it will be noticed presently that the controversy now appears to be of academic importance and does not need to be addressed on merit, though it appears that the Courts below have proceeded on erroneous construction of the plaint by treating it to be a suit for eviction under Rajasthan Premises Control Act. The plaintiff alleging himself to be owner of the suit property asserted that the defendant appellant is in possession of the land unauthorisedly. If he is paying rent to Shyam Lal, he is not authorised to receive the rent, she being owner of the property is entitled of possession and rent. It was nowhere alleged in the plaint that respondent State was her tenant or that after that the respondent has entered in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »