Rajasthan Court August 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. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC804; 2002(4)WLN451
Keshote, J.1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Assistant Manager, Jaipur Regional Office, Jaipur by this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution is praying for quashing and setting aside of the order cum award dated 26. 5. 2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura in claim petition No. 179/2001 Smt. Baljinder Kaur and Ors v. Katraia Carriers and Ors. 2. This order cum award is on the record of this petition as Annexure-3. Under this impugned order cum award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura has awarded Rs. 50,000/- as an interim compensation to the claimants. Out of this awarded amount, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura has ordered for investment of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-is disbursed in favour of the claimants. 3. At the outset it is to be stated that this approach of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura to disburse 50% of amount of the interim award in favour...
Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN470
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Sessions Case No. 46/99 by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under:-OffenceSentence awarded376 I.P.C.7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default tofurther undergo 1 months' R.I.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances:1) On 20.6.99 at about 4.10 p.m. PW. 2 Manesh Kumar lodged a report Ex.P/2 before Police Station Bichhiwara, Dist. Dungarpur before PW. 11 Lal Singh, SHO stating that on 19.6.97, he and his, wife Laxmi PW. 5 went to his in-laws' house at village Vagdari and they left her daughter Reena P.W.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the prosecutrix') alone. It is further stated in the report that in the evening at 7 p.m., when they returned to their house, PW. 1 Reena was lying on cot and she was weeping. When they asked ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Mukesh Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj404; [2002(92)FLR47]; 2001(3)WLC407; 2001(3)WLN682; 2002(2)WLN235
Lakshmanan, C.J. (1). Heard Shri M.D. Agarwal, for the appellants, Shri Rinesh Gupta, for Respondent No. 1 and Shri Ajay Rastogi, for Respondents No. 2 & 3. (2). This special appeal has been filed by the appellant - Life Insurance Corporation of India against the order dated 6.3.1998, passed by the learned Single Judge inS.B. Civil Writ Pelition No. 288/1992, by which, the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 - herein has been allowed. (3). The husband of the respondent No. 1 - herein, namely Ramjilal, was employed with Kotputli Rural Electric Cooperative Society Ltd., which was subsequently taken over by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB). Ramjilal was insured with the appellant corporation under the 'Salary Saving Scheme Endorsement Policy' with Policy No. 012197041 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Ramjilal had authorised his employer namely; respondents No 2 and 3 herein to deduct a sum of Rs.216.70 from his salary very month in respect of the said policy and after ded...
Hurji Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ472
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 11-3-87 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Sessions Case No. 29/86 by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him as under :Offence Sentence awarded376, IPC 5 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo 1 year's R. I2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances :(i) On 31-5-86 at about 8 p.m. P.W. 1 Smt. Haju (hereinafter referred to as the Prosecutrix) lodged an oral report Ex.P/1 before the Police Station, Dungarpur stating that in the night at about. 12 p.m. there was heavy rain and she came out from the house to tie the cow. She has further stated that she saw the accused appellant standing there and on seeing him she asked as to why he was standing there, thereupon the accused appellant immediately grappled her and threw her on the ground and she was dragged inside the ho...
Umesh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN580
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 43/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence Under Sections 376, 323 and 341 IPC and sentenced in the following manner:Name of accused Convicted Sentence awarded appellant Under Section Umesh 376 IPC Ten years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months imprisonment. 323 IPC Three months SI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month imprisonment. 341 IPC One month SI.All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:On 15.4.1998, at about 11.30 AM, PW-6 Rampyari (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) lodged a written report Ex.D/2 before the Police Station, Hanumangarh Town stati...
Ashok Lodha Vs. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN513
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the orders of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,63,816/- for the alleged theft and misuse of the electricity.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Royal Finishing Works. On 17.5.1997 a vigilance checking was made at the factory of the petitioner. This checking was effected without any notice to the petitioner as required under Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act'). A report was prepared by the party and the signatures of Rikhab Raj were obtained alleging him to be the consumer. A copy of the said report dated 17.5.1997 has been produced as Annex. 2 with the writ petition. It would be worth while to mention here that according to the petitioner Rikhab Raj was not the authorised Manager of the factory. He was a small employee and had no business to communicate on behalf of the petitioner. However, on...
Gariba and anr. Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC453
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties.The challenge has been made by the petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur dated 16.9.2000 (Annexure-3).2. The facts of the case are that petitioner filed claim petition along with his daughter Pinky against respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle which was involved in the accident. The petitioners stated in their claim petition that when they were travelling in the offending bus the driver of it was driving the same rashly and negligently and as a result of which near village Soha the bus was met with an accident in which petitioners and his daughter Pinky sustained grievous injuries. During the pendency of this claim petition, the daughter of the petitioner Kumari Pinky, one of the claimants, died on 7.12.1999 as a result of the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The petitioners filed an appli...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Hotel Hillock Pvt. Sirohi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN95
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These three appeals raise a common and identical issue, hence are being heard and decided together by this common order. The issue raised is whether demand of initial renewal fee payable by any applicant and paid along with application for renewal before renewal, can be enhanced on account of amendment in Rule prescribing license fee during the operative period of licence, but after the renewal has become effective, and where such amendment is not retrospective?3. The petitioner in each case was granted licence under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with Rajasthan Excise (Grant of Hotel Bar/Club Bar/Restaurant Bar) Licences Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Rules of 1973. Licence initially granted for the financial year 1996-97 was to end 31st March, 1997. Under the Rules licence is granted for a financial year (1st April to 31st March) and can be, renewed from year to year. The licence in each ca...
Bhanwarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj365; 2002(5)WLC432; 2002(2)WLN323
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant from jail against the judgment and order dated 7.12.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 25/98 by which he convicted the.accused appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months RI.2. Since nobody was representing the accused appellant as this appeal has been preferred from jail, therefore, this Court vide order dated 28.3.2001 appointed Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to argue the case behalf of the accused appellant and thus, he has argued the same.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-PW2 Ramesh Chandra made a parchakayami (Ex.P/7) on 3.5.1998 at about 6.30 PM in capacity as SHO, Poli...
Hotel Malwa Vs. Prescribed Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR554]; (2001)IILLJ1485Raj; 2001WLC(Raj)UC646; 2001(4)WLN696
1. The appellants Hotel Malwa, Jaipur Road, Ajmer seeks to quash the order dated of February 26, 1999 of the learned single Judge whereby, the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed and the order dated December 31, 1998 of the Prescribed Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' 1958) was confirmed.2. Contextual facts depict that the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'Concerned Workman'), submitted an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1958 before the Prescribed Authority with the averments that he had been working with the appellant for continuous period of last 17-18 years as Manager and Clerk and was gettirig Rs. 1465/- per month as salary. On April 30, 1998 when the respondent went to attend Hotel Malwa, he was prevented by the Guard from entering into the premises and his services were terminated by an order dated April 30, 1998. It was, therefore, prayed to set aside the said ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »