Rajasthan Court January 2002 Judgments
The General Manager, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN346
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These appeals arise out of one and same accident, common judgment and involve common facts, therefore, are decided by this common judgment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case which are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals are that on 20.9.1991 at about 6.00 p.m. Gost Mohd., Devilal, Smt. Gulab, Prabhat Narain, Suresh Saxena, Kishan Lal, Jitendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar were travelling in a jeep bearing No. RJ-03/0070 from Partapur to Banswara. When the said jeep was plying in the area of village Koorpada, at that relevant time a bus bearing No. MIF/4516 was coming from opposite direction which was owned by appellant Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and was driven by its driver respondent Dhanna Lal rashly and negligently, collided with the jeep. Due to this accident, Gost Mohd., Devi Lal, Smt. Gulab and Prabhat Narain succumbed to injuries and other person sustained injuries.3. The leg...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Dan Detha and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR286]; RLW2003(1)Raj116; 2002(1)WLN725
Mathur, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.9.1997 dismissing the writ petition.2. The facts giving rise to this special appeal are that in the year 1984, Rajasthan Public Service Commission made advertisement for recruitment on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jails. The appellants Bhanwar Dan Detha and Surendra Singh Shekhawat also applied and appeared at the examination. The process of selection commenced in October, 1985 and concluded in June, 1987. The names of the writ petitioners were recommended by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to the State Government for appointment on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jails. The factual appointment was delayed because of some litigation. Ultimately, both the petitioners were appointed on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jails by order dated 23.6.1987. The private respondents namely Smt. Rajendra Kumari and Shankar Singh were promoted to the post of Deputy Superinte...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Vaishnav (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1232
Arun Kumar, C.J.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned transfer order dated 12th June, 2001 was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, who has no power to pass such an order. He relies on the judgments of this Court in Smt. Bali v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1) decided on 23.8.01 and Satyabir Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2), wherein it has been held that the Divisional Commissioner has no power to transfer, in such matters.2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the appellants/petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal against this order of transfer. Even if that may be so, if the transfer order is passed by the authority who had no such power, we are of the view that driving the appellant/petitioner to another proceedings may not be necessary, and relief against such an order can be granted in the writ petition.3. Accordingly, we quash the impugned transfer order.4. The appeal is allowed with no or...
Tag this Judgment!Ramswaroop Yadav and anr. Vs. Prahlad Das Vairagi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN724
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners perused the memo of revision petition and the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Behror dated 18.1.1993. Under this order the application file by the plaintiff petitioners on 2.9.1996 praying therein for grant of the permission to amend the plaint was rejected.2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff petitioner submitted that the order of the court below is ex-facie illegal. Infact the learned court below has no considered the application filed Under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.3. It has been next contended that the earlier part of the disputed land was sold by the sale-deed dated 29.1.1979. The application filed by the plaintiff petitioners for amendment of the plaint and to challenge the validity legality and propriety of that sale-deed has been allowed against the sell of other part of the land on 7.1.1976 the amendment is not allowed and this identical amendment as prayed for should have been granted.4. Lastly ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pritam Kaur Vs. Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN583
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The present appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), has been filed by the appellant, challenging the order dated 31.1.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation,Kota (hereinafter to be referred to as the Authority) by which claimant respondent No. 1 - Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar has been allowed the compensation of Rs. 84,716/- to be paid by the Insurance Company. The claimant respondent No. 1 has also been allowed Rs. 30,300/- towards the interest and penalty to be paid by the appellant herein and her three sons.2. After filing of the appeal, the office raised 9 objections including the objection in regard to the limitation and non-filing of receipt of depositing the amount awarded by the Authority. The appeal being time barred by 804 days, the appellant had also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. this Court, vide order dated 19.7.1999, over-ruled the defects a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pritam Kuar Vs. Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC127
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The present appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed by the appellant, challenging the order dated 31.1.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Kota (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Authority'), by which, claimant respondent No. 1-Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar has been allowed the compensation of Rs. 84,716/- to be paid by the Insurance Company. The claimant respondent No. 1 has also been 'allowed Rs. 30,300/-towards the interest and penalty to be paid by the appellant herein and her three sons.2. After filing of the appeal, the office raised 9 objections including the objection in regard to the limitation and non-filing of receipt of depositing the amount awarded by the Authority. The appeal been time barred by 804 days, the appellant had also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. This Court, vide order dated 19.7.1999, over-ruled the defec...
Tag this Judgment!Kaviraj Mahipat Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR470(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether the learned Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest received from the Bank of India, Union Bank of India and the United Commercial Bank on fixed deposits with the said banks and interest paid to the said banks on the amounts taken against the fixed deposit receipts are to be treated distinctly and interest paid to the said banks is not to be reduced from the gross interest receipts and only the gross interest receipts are to be included in the income of the assessee-family ? 2. Whether the learned Tribunal was correct in law in sustaining taxability of gross interest receipts from each bank instead of net interest receipts from each bank ? 3. Whether the learned Tribunal was correct in law in taxing the gross interest receipts or/and in not allowing interest payment as on expenditure/ deduction particularly w...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN695; 2002(3)WLN695
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 1.9.1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 15/86 by which he convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R1 for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R1 for one year.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 28.8.1985 at about 8.00 PM, PW5 Umedaram lodged a written report Ex.P/3 with the Police Station Nokha District Bikaner stating inter-alia that on 17.8,1985 at about 10.00 AM, his daughter Rami, PW7 (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) aged about 15 years was going to his field and when she walked near about 1 km., on the way accused appellants met her and the accused appellant Shankar caughthold her hand and put on the ground and, thereafter, both accused appellants committed rape with ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC295; 2002WLC(Raj)UC676; 2002(4)WLN118
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.7.1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 32/86, by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default payment of fine, to further undergo one year RI. 2. By the same judgment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar acquitted another accused Saraswati and Kanta of the charges for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC and also acquitted present accused appellant of the charge for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- On 10.2.1986, PW-1 Jai Narain lodged an oral report Ex.P/1 with the Police Station Kotwali Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that his daughter Bimla (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) aged about 18 years was married...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. Hardan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj134; 2002(5)WLC384; 2002(5)WLN167
Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order of the Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant petitioners in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.2, Jaipur city, Jaipur. The plaintiff respondent served with a charge-sheet dated 2.10.1993 and misconduct alleged against him was that he deposited deficit tickets worth Rs. 35,4556/- causing financial loss to the Corporation. He has stated that in the enquiry conducted, the charge levelled against the plaintiff respondent was not found proved. The defendant petitioner No.2 in its order dated 13.7.1998 ordered for recovery of Rs. 35,556/- from the salary of the plaintiff respondent. In the suit this order has been challenged and an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 115 CPC was filed by the plaintiff respondent along with the suit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »