Rajasthan Court January 2002 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC112; 2004ACJ476; 2002(1)WLC799; 2002(4)WLN710
Misra, J.1. The appellant-National Insurance Company has assailed the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jhunjhunu which has been pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 4,45,000/- to the claimant-Mukesh @ Bablu who although is a boy aged eight years only, suffered irreparable injuries on his right leg since he was hit by the truck which was running at a very high speed as a result of which he is a completely disabled person-so much so as per the evidence of the witnesses of the claimants that he has to be lifted on lap by his relative or parents. It cannot be disputed that in a situation of this nature where the victim of the accident is compelled to live the life of worse than a dead man, has to be adequately compensated since the claimant/victim although would remain alive, he would be completely dependent for his entire life on someone-else-be it his relative or some person who is hired for his assistance. The normal rule of multiplier as envisaged under the Motor Vehicles ...
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR988]; RLW2003(1)Raj246; 2002(3)WLN61; 2002(3)WLN61
Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition has been registered on a letter of convict Om Prakash Resident of village Kherampura Police Station Adampur District-Hissar (Haryana). He was arrested in September, 1995. He was tried on the charge for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by judgment dated 29.1.1999 convicted him for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He is presently lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner. He has undergone a sentence of about six years. He submitted an application before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner for consideration of his case by Advisory Committee for release on parole. The District Magistrate obtained the police report from Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Officer, Hissar. The Superintendent of Police has sent an adverse report stating that if he is released, tension may crop up in the village. The Sub-Divisional Officer has verified that the house of the applicant is required ...
Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT301(Raj); RLW2003(1)Raj312; 2002(3)WLN88; 2002(3)WLN88
Mathur, J. 1. The petitioner Company is engaged in manufacturing of yarn and fabrics using cotton and man made fibres. It paid additional duty of excise levied under the Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act, 1953, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act', Popularly known as 'Handloom Cess'. During the period 1.10.1984 to 31.12.1988, according to the petitioner Company, cess was paid under a bonafide belief that the fabric in question is subject to the Handloom Cess, whereas the fabric in question was falling under Chapter 52.09 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, chargeable at nil rate of Basic Excise Duty. Prior to the introduction of the aforesaid Act of 1985, the fabric in question fell under classification No. 19-I(B) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and that too, was chargeable to nil rate of Basic Excise Duty. The petitioner Company entertained a doubt whether the Handloom Cess is leviable on the fabric in question fr...
Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj257; 2002(3)WLN7; 2002(3)WLN7
Mathur, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated8.4.1985 dismissing the writ petition. 2. The facts of the instant case lies within a very narrow compass. The petitioner passed the M.Com. (Previous) Examination in July, 1982. He was not satisfied with the valuation of marks in third paper i.e., Industrial Relation and Personnel Management wherein he had secured only 32 marks out of 100. Thus, he applied for re-evaluation. The result of the re-evaluation was declared on 4.11.1982 and marks of the petitioner were reduced from 32 to 21 and as such he failed in the third paper in M.Com. (Previous). The scheduled last date for submitting the examination form for M.Com. (Final) Examination, 1983 was 5.11.1982. He submitted the application and also deposited the examination fee on 5.11.1982. The petitioner also applied for permission to appear at the left out paper of M.Com. (Previous) simultaneously with the M.Com. (Final) Examination, 1983. The petitioner deposited t...
Bharat Construction Company Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR59(Raj); RLW2003(1)Raj275; 2002(3)WLN47; 2002(3)WLN47
Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two appeals arise in identical circumstances at the instance of same petitioner in respect of his grievance against denial to him to participate in process of granting two separate contracts, for which offers were invited by two separate tender notices. The petitioner-appellant has been eliminated from participation in both cases, at pre-qualifying stage, finding him to be ineligible to enter the field. 3. The two petitions filed by him have been dismissed by learned Single Judge on 11.12.2001. The detailed order has been made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4386/2001 out of which D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 2/2002 had arisen. This relates to NIT No. 1/2001-2002 issued by Addl. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Zone, Kishore Bagh, Lal . Sagar, Jodhpur for execution of Earthwork, Pucca Structure and cement concrete lining with paver machine as per specification of Narmada Canal from 7.88 to 51.50 for estimated cost of Rs. 26 crores...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mana Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj308
Mathur, J. 1. This group of State appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.3.2001. 2. The respondent-petitioners are the convict under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. They are undergoing the sentence awarded by the trial court. They have been denied parole under the Rajasthan Release of Prisoners on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Parole Rules') In view of the provisions of Section 32-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Dadu v. State of Maharashtra (1), held as under:- 'Considering the provisions of 'the Rules' as they exist today and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dadu v. State of Maharashtra, this Court feels that there is no impediment feels that there is no impediment wherein it can be said that the petitioners cannot apply for grant of parole.'3. The learned Single Judge accordingly directed as follows:- 'The respond...
K.G. Sharma Vs. Pratap Autowheels and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC38; 2002CriLJ3711; RLW2003(2)Raj1170; 2002(5)WLC510; 2002(4)WLN528
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. Heard at admission stage. 2. By this judgment, the abovementioned both the criminal revision petitions are being decided as in both of them, the law point involved is the same. Facts of Criminal Revision Petition No. 15/2002 3. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner against the order dated 18.8.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 303/99 by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 468, Cr.P.C. 4. It arises in the following circumstances : (i) The respondent-complainant filed a complaint on 23.5.1998 against the accused-petitioner for committing the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the accused-petitioner purchased lubricant oil from the complainant respondent and for making payment of that, a Cheque No.232348 dated 25.8.1997 was issued by the accused-petitioner in favo...
Ramu Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ123Raj; RLW2003(1)Raj641; 2002(2)WLN558
Mathur, J.1. This matter has been placed before us by the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice on a reference made by the learned Single Judge (Quorum B.S. Chauhan J.) to examine the correctness of the judgments of this Court viz. Vinod Kumar.v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1), Om Prakash Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2), Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Vibhag Sangh v. State of Raj. and Ors. (3) and unreported judgment dated 19.5.93 in Rana Ram and Ors. (4), interpreting the provisions of Sub-rule (3) & (4) of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan (Public Works Department (B&R;) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments) work-charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1964) and the Notification dated 19.8.1980.2. The material facts to bring out the points for consideration in the instant writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioners were engaged as Beldar by the 4th respondent Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Depart...
Ghasi Lal Ora Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ643Raj; 2002(2)WLC509; 2002(5)WLN115
M.R. Calla, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated August 13, 1998 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed. The Writ Petition was filed by the present Appellant against the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and the Executive Engineer (O & M), Rajasthan State Electricity Board, RGM, Kota. The Petitioner was working as a Helper Gr II with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. On the ground of pendency of a criminal case, he was placed under suspension vide order dated July 13, 1978. On February 18, 1983, the Petitioner was convicted in a criminal case under Section 302 and 149, IPC. On the basis of this conviction, his services were put to an end vide order dated March 5, 1983. i.e. Schedule A with the Writ Petition. 2. The Petitioner had preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence before this Court. The appeal was decided on January 24, 1986 and his conviction was converted under Section 323 IPC and the...
Nawab HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN21
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This petition has been registered on the letter of applicant Nawab Hussain. His prayer for parole has been rejected on the ground that he is a resident of outside the State of Rajasthan i.e., State of Haryana.2. This aspect has been dealt with by us today i.e., on 15.01.2002 in D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 167/2001 Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan.3. In view of the reasons and conclusion arrived at in the aforesaid special appeal, the petition filed by the appelicant Nawab Hussain is partly allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the applicant's case afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgment....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »