Rajasthan Court July 2001 Judgments
Ajeet Singh Vs. New India Insurance Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN160
Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The brief facts of the case are that one Prem Kumar son of Oda Ram who was husband of claimant No. l, father of claimant No. 2 and son of claimant No. 3 died in accident with truck No.HYN-7941 which was owned by non-claimant No. 2 Ajit Singh and was being driven by non-claimant No. 1 -Pyara Singh. At the time of filing of claim, claimants were not aware of the fact whether the truck is insured or not and if insured which is the Company and who insured the above truck. The claimants submitted that Prem Kumar was employed as driver and he was driving Jeep No.RRK 1457. On 28.1.1988 at about 10.00 a.m. on the road from Hanumangarh to Ganganagar, deceased was going in the above jeep and a truck No.HYN 7941 came and hit the jeep of deceased-Prem Kumar and Prem Kumar died on spot. An FIR was lodged on 29.1.1988 by the owner of the truck. The claimants stated that Prem Kumar was getting Rs. 600/- per month by driving the above mentioned jeep ...
Tag this Judgment!Nana Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC694
Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that PW-7 Kaliya lodged a First information Report Exhibit P-11 on 19.7.1996 at Police Station Varda staling inter alia that in the evening of 18.7.1996 his neighbour appellant Nana was cutting 'thor boundary'. The appellant gave 2-3 kulhari blows on the head of Phula as he objected his act of 'cutting 'thor boundary' of his house. The informant also stated that the incident was witnessed by his grandson Maniya and granddaughter Jassa. He also stated that Phula was taken to the hospital by Bhuri, Raman, Raghu etc. He succumbed to the injuries on the way. On this information, police registered a case for offence under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Smt. Indu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj169; I(2002)DMC430; 2002(3)WLN85
Sharma, J.1. Appellant-Narendra Kumar Gupta is present in person alongwith Mr. Alok Garg, learned counsel.2. Case has been called in second round, none appeared on behalf of respondent wife.3. We have heard Mr. Alok Garg learned counsel appearing for the appellant and carefully scanned the impugned judgment and material on record.4. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17th March, 1990 of the Family Court, Jaipur, whereby the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short '1955 Act') was dismissed.5. Contextual facts depict that the petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act came to be filed by the husband-appellant on the ground of cruelty against the respondent-wife. It was pleaded that the marriage had taken place according to Hindu rites on 18.11.1981 and from the very beginning the respondent-wife started misbehaving with the appellant. She used to say that 'she was married in a family which did not have any standard of...
Tag this Judgment!Saifullan Khan and ors. Vs. Doongar Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC521; 2002ACJ521; AIR2001Raj352; 2001(3)WLC598
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging the validity, legality and correctness of the order dated 21-6-2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in claim case No. 108/95,2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 are neither necessary nor proper parties to this petition and their names are deleted. So far as other respondents are concerned, Mr. Virendra Lodha put appearance. The Registry is directed to make necessary endorsement to this extent in the cause title. The matter is complete. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have already filed their reply to the petition. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that pertitioners' uncle late Shri Mehmood Hussain Khan died due to motor cycle accident driven by the respondent. The petitioner raised a claim for Rs. ten lacs before the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal. During the course of the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN253
Jagat Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th February, 1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore where by accused appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 304-Band 498-A, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304-B, IPC and 3 years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 498-A, IPC along with fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment to further undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Mst. Babita, aged 22 years, one and half years after the marriage, at her in-laws' house, died due asphyxia caused by drowning. Ex.P-6 FIR dated 11.7.1997 was lodged by PW-6 Desra Ram, father of the girl, against Rajendra Kumar husband, Jethmal father-in-law and Mst. Dariya mother-in-law, who were apprehended on 13.8.1997 and after usual investigation, were challaned and charged for the above o...
Tag this Judgment!Umed Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ414
Jagat Singh, J. 1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr. P.C. accused appellant Umed Singh has assailed the judgment and conviction dated 31-1-2001 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana in Sessions Case No. 30/99 by which he was convicted under Section 304, Part II, IPC and was awarded seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Similarly, under Section 323, IPC he was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000/- only.2. The charges against the accused appellant were that at about 2-30 p.m. on 2-9-1997 in village Jhardia in the house of deceased, Umed Singh accused came armed with a lathi and gave blows on the head of Datar Kanwar resulting which she fell down. Her younger sister PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar tried to intervene but she too was given lathi blow on her right hand and thereafter accused ran away. Injured Datar Kanwar was taken to Ladnu Hospital from where she was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where she was operated upon for the head injuries but ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Dipti Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3910
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 3-7-1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Bikaner in Case No. 2/95 by which he acquitted the accused respondent of the charges for the offence under Section 447, IPC and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act')2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :--PW 4 Taruram sent a written report Ex. P/5 dated 10-7-1994 addressed to Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, in which he has stated that he is by Caste Meghwal and member of Scheduled Caste and he was allotted 9 bighas agriculture land in Chak 2 RM Murabba No. 92/37 and 92/45 and khatedari rights over the said land were also given to him on 2-4-1993, but he has been in possession of that land since 1981. He has further stated in the report that accused respo...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpa Kochar and ors. Vs. the Rajasthan High Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC269; 2002(3)WLN174
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Through this writ petition, the petitioners, who are six in number challenge the validity of the consolidated seniority list (Annexure/4) dated 28.4.1999 of the Officers of Rajasthan Judicial Service (for short 'R.J.S.) manning different posts in the hierarchy of R.J.S. as on 31.5.1998.2. The present writ petition has come up for hearing before us on a reference having been made by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 9.1.2001.3. In the first instance, two provisional seniority lists were published on 13.7.1998 inviting abjections thereto. One provisional seniority list [Annexure/1] related to Officers holding posts of Civil Judge [Senior Division] cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates and another provisional seniority list [Annexure/2] pertained to the Civil Judges [Junior Division] cum Judicial Magistrates. The provisional seniority list [Annexure/1] has been prepared on the basis of the respective date of promotion of the Officers from the post ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN146
Jagat Singh, J.1. These appeals have arisen out of judgment dated 04th November, 1997 delivered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar District-Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 9/96 whereby accused Sadhu Ram S/o Kheta Ram was convicted Under Section 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/-.2. Both these appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 04th November, 1997 and there being common questions of facts and law involved in the matter and there being common arguments advanced before us, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, copy of which may be retained in each case file.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09th July, 1996 at about 11:30 in the night in village Gandhibadi under Police Station, Bhirani, District-Hanumangarh, one Ramji Lal Chamar, aged about 52 years, was beaten to death by his own cousin brother Sadhu Ram, appellant herein, when the deceased was sleeping in front of his shop. Upon infl...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramji Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC609; 2002(3)WLN118
Keshote, J.1. This matter was admitted on 30th March, 2000. On 31st March, 2000, the office directed the petitioner to file process fee and notices by 22nd April, 2000. This has not been done which is apparent from the report of the office dated 24.4.2000. On 25th April, 2001, the matter was ordered to be come up before Registrar on 30.5.2000. On 30.5.2000 two weeks time was granted to the petitioner for filing process fee and notices. On 1st June, 2000, the matter was ordered to place on 12th July, 2000 with required report. From the office report of 13th July, 2000, I find that process fee and notices have not been filed by the petitioner by that date. On 13.7.2000, the matter was directed to be placed on 14th August, 2000 in court. Still the processfee and notices have not been filed, as it is clear from the report of office dated 16.8.2000. Matter was not come up for order in Court on 14.8.2000. On 17.8.2000, the matter was directed to be placed in court for 21.9.2000. By 20.9.2000...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »