Rajasthan Court March 2002 Judgments
New India Assurance Co. and ors. Vs. Kheta Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ553; RLW2003(2)Raj1274; 2002(5)WLC953; 2002(5)WLN453
Tatia, J.1. There are two sets of appeals against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Phalodi dated 19th April, 1996. One set of the appeals on behalf of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another set of the appeals are from National Insurance Company Ltd.2. It is alleged that on 7th July, 1990 accident took place at Bhap-Phalodi Road. Some passengers were travelling in the Jeep No. RJ-19 T-1079, which was being driven by Hakim Khan @ Abudal Hamid. It is alleged that driver of the truck No. RJ07/G0034 came rashly and negligently and hit the Jeep causing accident resulting into death of six persons and injuries to several other persons. The claimants preferred claims against the driver, owner and Insurance Companies of both the vehicles. All the claim petitions were consolidated after framing issues. The point for determination before the tribunal was whether there was any negligence of the driver of the truck in causing accident whereas in some of the claim petition...
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2750
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing FIR No. 86/2000 of the Police Station. Hamirwas, Dist. Churu for offence under Sections 395, 397, 149, 323 and 342, I.P.C.2. This misc. petition arises in the following circumstances :(1) One Mohan Lal lodged a written report with the Police Station Hamirwas on 16-5-2001 stating inter alia that, he was dealing in business of ornaments and on 15-5-2001, he was coming from Delhi in Bus No. RJ-07/2099 and one Delhi Party had given him 16.33 Kgs. silver and 35 gms. gold for preparing ornaments and he was carrying that with him. In the bus, near about this seat, one person of Sardarshahar named as Nanu was also sitting. When the bus reached near Rajgarh a jeep came there and that jeep stopped in front of the bus and from the jeep 7 to 8 persons having guns and pistols in their hand came down and all the persons boarded the bus. It was further stated that their f...
Tag this Judgment!Bhadar Ram Vs. Sant Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN405; 2002(3)WLN405
Prasad, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, 29 DWD on 31.1.2000. An objection was taken before the Returning Officer that in view of provisions of Section 19(l)(iv) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner was not qualified to be a candidate at election because he is father of five children. Two of them have been born after 27.11.1995, a date after which any offspring in addition to two children has been construed to be a disqualification for being candidate at election. The Returning Officer did not re-act to the objection and accepted the nomination paper of the petitioner. At the election, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. After election, an election petition was filed challenging the election of the petitioner by respondent No.l Sant Ram. In this election petition, trial was held and after trial Election Tribunal came to the conclusion that two of the offspring of t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kedar Nath Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj268; 2002(3)WLC71
Parihar, J. 1. After framing of charges, the petitioner was examined as prosecution witness before the trial court on 11.5.1998. Subsequently, after completion of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, when the case was listed before the trial court for final arguments, an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor for recalling the petitioner as witness for re-examination so that the medical report, as given by him, may be exhibited. 2. While allowing the application vide order dated 1.7.2000, the trial court directed the prosecution to produce the petitioner as witness of its own or, alternatively, the summons may also be issued. However, a cost of Rs. 3000/- was imposed on the prosecution. Out of the above cost of Rs. 3000/-, Rs. 1000/- was further ordered to be recovered from the petitioner on the ground that he did not make the complete statement and also did not brought to the notice of the court the medical report, made by him. The order dated 1.7.2000, passed by the tri...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotu Singh and anr. Vs. Smt. Ramdini
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3499; II(2003)DMC197; RLW2003(2)Raj1343; 2002(4)WLC253; 2002(4)WLN636
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 29.3.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Case No. 81/94 by which he partly accepted the application filed by the respondent under sEction 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance allowance awarded to the respondent earlier vide order dated 29.4.85 and enhanced the amount of maintenance to the paid by petitioner No. 2 from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/-.2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows:-i) The respondent - wife filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur on 23.5.94 stating that vide order dated 29.4.85 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jodhpur, she was awarded Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance and out of Rs. 400/-, Rs. 300/- were to be paid to her by the petitioner Chholu Singh, who is her husband and Rs. 100/- were to be paid by petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash who is the son.3. Aggrieved fr...
Tag this Judgment!Mehboob Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1153; 2002(5)WLC639; 2002(5)WLN572
Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 2.2.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in criminal appeal No. 80/2000 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 20.11.97 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 97/86 by which the learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 279 and 304A I.P.C. and also convicted another accused Shaukat for offence under Section 94/125 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced each of them as under:NameConviction u/SSentence awardedMehboob279 I.P.C.6 months' S.I.Mehboob304A I.P.C.1 year's S.I. and a fineof Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo 1 months S.I.Shaukat Ali94/125 MV ActFine of Rs. 500/- indefault to further undergo 7 days' S.I.2. It arises in the following circumstances:...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Vs. Sate of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC198; 2003(1)WLN30
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Appellate Court dated 25.9.2001, allowing the appeal of the respondent.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that vide order dated 19.4.1980, appellant had been appointed temporarily as a Lower Division Clerk with a clear stipulation that his services would be liable to be terminated without any notice. His services stood terminated without providing any opportunity of hearing or issuing show cause notice vide order dated 3.3.1981. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant filed Civil Suit No. 178/1981 in the Civil Court, Bikaner, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 5.11.1999 with the direction that appellant should be reinstated with all consequential benefits. However, as in the meanwhile, appellant had joined the service in the Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur with effect from 26.3.1984, he was deprived of the back wages from the said dat...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshdas and anr. Vs. Ramesh Chandra and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Raj341; 2002(3)WLN608
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The first three Revisions have been filed against the common order dated 7-9-2001, rejecting the application of the petitioners dated 22-8-2001 to consolidate these three cases and hear them together.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these three Revisions are that three different suits are pending and an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.') for consolidation of all these three cases had been filed which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22-8-2001 on the grounds that the parties in the cases are not the same as in two suits i.e. Case No, 5/ 2001 and 12/2001; Ramesh Chandra is the plaintiff wherein Mangidas is the defendant in both the suits but Mangidas is defendant only in one suit and in Case No. 17/2001 Ganeshdas and Mangidas are the defendants but Vallabhadas and Ramesh Chandra are not parties therein at all; the documents on the basis of which the cases are being fought are...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeoji Chandreswarji Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj4; RLW2003(2)Raj1345; 2002(4)WLC98; 2002(5)WLN476
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 12-11-2001, by which the application filed by the revisionist under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') for giving permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh, if the need be arisen, has been rejected.2. In respect of the property in dispute, the Estate Officer, in exercise of its power under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act, 1965'), passed the order. The said order was challenged in appeal and the learned District Judge allowed the appeal of the present revisionist vide order dated 14-7-92 directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, respondents filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 14-7-92, which stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11-1-2000. Petitioner had also filed a suit...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar @ Beni Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3988; RLW2003(2)Raj1064; 2003(2)WLC553
Sharma, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 6.2.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Cases, Ajmer, whereby he convicted the accused appellants under Section 376(2)(g) 1PC and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11 years with a fine of Rs. 5500/-, in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 55 days. Since both these appeal arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts of the prosecution case are summarised as here below :3. On 20.1.1994, Smt. Sunita Harijan, a resident of Ajmer lodged a verbal report at Police Station, Pushkar stating that she left her house with an intention to stand on her own legs by doing labour and for that purpose, visited number of places. She had fifty rupees with her and after staying at Ajmer for two days, she left for Pushkar on 19/1.1994 for walking and in search of labour. A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »