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.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sodhra Devi and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC588; AIR2002Raj230; 2002(2)WLC763
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. A common award was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar in four claim cases which were filed by four different claimants in regard to three deaths which took place on account an accident caused by a Bus owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') since it hit a vehicle called 'Jugad' in colloquial terms on which the deceased persons were travelling. A categorical finding has been recorded against the driver of the vehicle that the accident took place since the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner as a consequence of which the 'Jugad' on which the deceased persons were travelling was hit, killing three persons whose legal representatives filed four claim petitions. However, at the moment only three appellants are before this Court against the common award by which the amount of compensation was determined for payment to the legal representatives of the deceased. Since nothing could be elicited against the qu...
Ram Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1923; 2003(3)WLC240
Sharma, J.1. Accused petitioners Ram Kumar and Sandeep have preferred this fourth bail petition. First, second and third bail petitions were respectively dismissed by this court on July 4, 2000, July 21, 2000 and Jan. 23, 2001.2. An FIR was registered with the Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu in connection with the murder of a candidate Birbal Singh, an old man of 75 years on the date of polling of Panchayal Elections. The murder was committed in broad day light on January 29, 2000 in a thickly populated area. According to the prosecution case Harphool Singh accused was the main rival of Birbal Singh in the said election. On account of political enmity Harphool Singh along with 33 accused formed unlawful assembly and came to village Bhimsar around 12 noon in three jeeps. They killed Birbal Singh and his body was taken away by them. As per post mortem report Birbal Singh died due to extensive haemorhage caused by 31 multiple injuries on all parts of his body including head and chest.3. Th...
Devi Shankar Vs. Ugam Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Raj330; 2002(3)WLN19
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 22-12-1983 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 15/1983 by which he dismissed the appeal of the appellant-defendant and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 9-8-1982 passed by the learned Munsiff, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 211/1980 by which the learned Munsiff, Udaipur decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the appellant-defendant from the shop in question on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity as envisaged under Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950').2. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are as follows :--On 7-7-1980, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellant in, the Court of Munsiff, Udaipur for arrearsof rent and eviction of the defendant-appellant fro...
Balaram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj132; 2002(2)WLN603
Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.3.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer by which the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application dated 15.12.2000 and 15.1.2001 filed by the complainant-petitioner for taking cognizance against the respondents No.2 Kanwar Raj Singh and PW.3 Parbat Singh for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989).2. It arises in the following circumstances :(i) That the petitioner filed a FIR with the Police Station, Jaisalmer on 21.6.2000 and in that FIR, after investigation, police submitted challan against four persons namely Rewant Singh, Nathu Singh, Swaroop Singh and Rughnath Singh for offence under Section 447, 323 and 427 I.P.C. and for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989). The challan was filed in the Court of CJM, Jaisalmer from where the Case was committed to the court of Special J...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Naurang Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1878
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 30-3-90 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Cr. Case No. 173/1986 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent for offence under Sections 16/54 (a)(c) and (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances :i) On 15-4-86, a secret information was received by P.W. 5 Suraj Prakash, Excise Inspector, Churu that illicit liquor was being prepared from a running still in the village belonging to the accused respondents and thereupon along with two motbirs P,W, 2 Arjun and P,W. 3 Khem Chand in the evening raided the field of the accused respondent and seeing the raiding party, it is case of the prosecution that the accused respondent and one more person who were there, fled away from the scene and in their absence, the field was searched and some illicit liquor along with some incriminating article of manufacturi...
Om Prakash Vs. the N.i.A. Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN700
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned single judge dated 13.8.2001 allowing the appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. holding that liability on the Company under the policy issued to the insured was limited to Rs. 15,000/- per passenger and it cannot be held liable beyond that limit. The accident occurred on 4.2.1989 when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force and therefore, the case has been examined by learned single judge, with reference to decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Jugal Kishore : [1988]2SCR910 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Bai and Ors. reported in : [1995]1SCR871 wherein the apex court has held that liability of the Insurance Company shall have to be determined as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, as prevalent on the date of accident. In the instant case, the vehicle involved in the accident is the vehicle in which pa...
Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau of I ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2003WLC(Raj)UC32; 2002(1)WLN732
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. after Board of Directors of the Corporation has resolved to impugned the First Information Report registered against a few of its functionaries.2. It has been averred in the petition that the present Chairman, Shri Rajeev Arora and the Managing Director, Shri Raj Hans Upadhyay were appointed vide order dated 5.1.2001. Shri Rajeev Arora since his student days had been actively associated with youth wing of the Congress Party. According to the petition, he is still widely acclaimed in the Congress set up at both levels i.e. State Politics and the Central Politics.3. It is alleged that Shri Arora was selected as one of the political targets to tarnish the image of present Congress Government in the State of Rajasthan. This assumption was drawn by the petitioner in the background that opposition wanted to take the advantage of such a propaganda in a byeelection which was to ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT289(Raj); 2003(1)WLN332
ORDERN.N. Mathur, JJ. - 1. This reference petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is at the instance of the department seeking reference of the following question of law arising from the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 6-12-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 438 (Tribunal)] :- 'Whether the explosive used for blasting of mines for obtaining ores and not in the manufacture of Zinc, are eligible for exemption under Notification No.191/87, dated 4-8-1987?'2. The respondent Hindustan Zinc Ltd. is a public undertaking. The Company mines Zinc and Lead ore from its own mines at Rajpura, Maton and Zawar. The Company was granted L-6 licence to obtain goods falling under Chapters 28, 29, 36 and 38 without payment of duty for use in the manufacture of Zinc and Lead concentrate in terms of Notification No. 191/87, dated 4-8-1987. The said notification reads as follows :-'Exemption to goods falling within Chapters 28,29,36 and 38[Add on ...
Balar Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(85)ECC142; 2002(142)ELT309(Raj); 2002(2)WLC475; 2002(1)WLN718
N.N. Mathur, J.1. We have heard Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.M. Lodha, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel. The petitioner - a private Company has approached to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved of the order of Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CEGAT) whereby its appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution by the impugned order (Annexure-5) dated 5-2-2001. The principal contention is that the Tribunal is not empowered to dismissed an appeal for default of appearance but has to decide the same on merit in view of the expression 'thereon' used in Section 35C(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that petitioner-Company is a manufacturer and processor engaged in manufacture of textile fabrics falling under different headings of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It ...
Mangu Singh Vs. Mehra Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Raj231; 2002(2)WLC505
Mathur, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.3.95 dismissing the Civil First Appeal arising from the judgment and decree dated 20.12.94 passed by the Additional District Judge, Banner in Civil Regular Suit No. 8/91.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant filed a money suit for recovery of Rs. 70,000/- with interest thereon stating inter alia that on 1.6.89 he advanced a loan of Rs. 70,000/- with interest thereon stating inter alia that on 1.6.89 he advanced a loan of Rs. 70,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 1/- per cent per month. The defendant executed a promissory note and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. It was also averred that the defendant Mehra Ram took the loan in order to facilitate one of his relative Chunnilal to purchase an automobile. Inspite of repeated demands, the amount was not returned. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he was entitled to a decree for principal amount of...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »