Rajasthan Court May 2001 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 Company Ltd. Vs. Lala Ram and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ978; 2002(1)WLC670; 2001(4)WLN490
ORDERPanwar, J. (1). This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.10.99 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pratapgarh (for short 'the Tribunal') under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in favour of respondent - claimant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and against the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited (for short 'the insurer'0 and respondents No. 2 & 3.(2). Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the appellant-insurer filed this appeal before this Court.(3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned.(4). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending tractor No. RJ-9R/1421 was having no valid licence at the relevant lime of accident. As such, by allowing the driver without having been valid licence, the owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the ...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Shri Ram Dayal and Another
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC8; 2001(3)WLN181
Hon'ble Prasad, J.(1). The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as the Tribunal') dated 27.9.1999.(2). The respondent No. 1 was one of the incumbents for being enrolled as a Jeep Driver before the petitioner authorities. He filled in a form Annex. A/1. In the form there was a column which said that have you ever been prosecuted. This was to be answered in 'yes' or 'no'. The respondent No. 1 answered this column in 'no'. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 had been prosecuted, held guilty and then granted benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. These facts have not been controverted by the respondent No. 1. The case of the petitioners is that in the application form warnings were appended on the top. These read as under:-'WARNINGS: 1) The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Att...
Durgalal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3652; 2002(2)WLC61; 2002(1)WLN429
Garg, J. 1. The abovenamed accused appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.11.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 53/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 1PC and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine., to further undergo six months SI.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 23.4.1998 at about 2.20 PM. PW1 Kamta, aged about 8 years (hereinafter referred to as the child prosecutrix) alongwith her mother PW3 Radha lodged an oral report Ex.P/1 before PW13 Shyam Sunder. SHO, Police Station Railmagra District Rajsamand slating inter-alia that on 23.4.1998 at about 10,00 AM. child prosecutrix PW1 Kamla went as usual to jungle for the purpose of grazing goats and she was grazing goats in the Bada of Noor Mohd. and she was sitting beneath the tree of Khejri. It was...
The State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Dr. Vijay Kumar Agrawal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj358; 2001(3)WLC11
ORDER1. Dr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, respondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as the 'writ petitioner') filed a writ petition against the State of Rajasthan, University of Rajasthan and Convenor. Central PG Admission Board and Principal, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, contending therein that it was incumbent upon the respondents in the writ petition to reserve at least 3 per cent seats for physically handicapped persons but they were not doing so and therefore, by a writ of mandamus they be compelled to provide at least 3 per cent reservation to physically handicapped persons in pre-P.G. Entrance Examination for admission to M.D./M.S./Diploma Courses. 2. The contention of the writ petitioner was based on the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short 'the Act'). Section 39 of the Act requires all Government educational Institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government to ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Munsi Alias Yonus
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2756
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4-7-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 45/95, by which he acquitted the accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi of the charges for the offence under Sections 366 and 376,I.P.C. and accused-respondent No. 2 Ibrahim of the charges of the offence under Sections 120-B and 366, I.P.C.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :-On 2-6-1995 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W. 3 Mangu lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before P.W. 8 Rameshwarlal, S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali, Churu stating inter alia that his brother Idris had gone to Iraq and Sahanaj, P.W. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) aged about 17-18 years was his niece. It was further stated in the report that on 30-5-1995 at about 5.00 p.m., accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi, after enticing prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj, had taken her with him from Churu and ke...
Peacock Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN184
B.J. Shethna, J.1. There is a chequered history in the matter between the parties. The private respondents-complainants are dragged to this Court time and again including the trial court by way of different type of applications. The intention behind it is only to delay the proceedings which are pending before the trial court as far as possible.2. On earlier occasion also, criminal complaint No. 282/97 was filed against the present petitioners by the respondent complainant. There is a very intelligent manner, the complainant was duped by the accused by entering into compromise. Thereupon, the complainant withdrew the complaint in terms of compromise and accordingly, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the trial court on 20.9.1997. As per the compromise, five cheques of Rs. 11 Lakhs each were drawn in favour of the respondent complainant. When the said cheques were deposited by the complainant in the bank, the same bounced back on account of insufficient fund in the back's account of ...
Rajasthan Excise Service Association Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC735; 2001(4)WLN454
J.C. Verma, J.1. Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Excise Service (General Branch) Rules, 1974 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules) provides that the strength of posts in each category of service is to be determined by the Government from time to time; the Government may create any post, permanent or temporary from time to time, as may be found necessary, and may abolish any such post in the like manner without thereby entitling any person to any compensation; the Government may leave unfilled or hold in abeyance or abolish or allow to lapse any post permanent or temporary from time to time. Sub-clause (c) of Rule 4 says that such number of posts of District Excise Officers as may be determined by the Government, shall be encadred in the service except that not less than 4 posts of District Excise Officers shall be in the service.2. Rule 13 of the rules provides that subject to the provisions of rule 8, appointment to senior posts encadred in the service shall be made by the Government on th...
Surya NaraIn Vs. Mohini Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC554; 2001WLC(Raj)UC456; 2001(4)WLN693
Shashi Kant Sharma, J.1. This criminal revision petition filed by Surya Narain, petitioner-husband is directed against the order dated 16.12.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has ordered the petitioner-husband to make payment of maintenance to respondent/wife from May, 1997 to May, 1998. In this matter, notice was issued to the non-petitioner/wife and Mr. Resham Bhargava, Advocate put in appearance on her behalf. Record from the Court below was called for. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties are heard and the entire record is examined.2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner-husband that the non-petitioner-wife Mohini Devi delivered a child on 12th of March, 1997 and, therefore, it is clear that the non-petitioner Mohini Devi lived with the petitioner-husband. It is also argued that the petitioner-husband is a poor person. The non-petitioner/wife herself is guilty and she is harassing the petitioner. She is not even caring h...
Dhokla Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3547
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the Judgment and order dated 24-1-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 376, IPC and has sentenced accused appellant as under :--------------------------------------------Offence Sentence awarded--------------------------------------------376 IPC 7 years' R.I. and a fine ofRs. 5000/- in default to furtherundergo 1 year's R.I.--------------------------------------------2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances :(i) On 8-6-99 at about 4-15 p.m. P.W. 1 Smt. Dhuri w/o Mota Ram (hereinafter referred to as the Prosecutrix lodged a written report Ex, P/1 in the Police Station Barmer Sadar before P.W. 12 Harji Ram stating that she was married about 2 years back with Mota Ram and she used to live in her in-laws' house, but on 5-6-99 she came to her father's house in village Rawatsar and since then she was ...
Jawand Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN252
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.8.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicting the appellant of offence Under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay of fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 2.7.1995 at about 6.45 AM. PW-1 Mai Singh lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Matilirathan stating inter alia that on the preceding day i.e. on 1.7.1995 in the afternoon at about 3.00 PM appellant Jawand Singh visited his home and persuaded his son Angrej Singh to accompany him. In the night at about 11.00 PM PW- 2 Makhan Singh and PW-3 Balwinder Singh brought Angrej Singh at the house in a tractor trolley. PW-2 Makhan Singh reported that appellant Jawand Singh dealt with 'Kassi' blow on the head of Angrej Singh on account of which he became unconscious. He alongwith Balwinder Singh a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »