Rajasthan Court May 2002 Judgments
Oriental Insurance (the) Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Dhopali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2635; 2002(5)WLC682; 2003(2)WLN17
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.02.1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat (camp Jaitaran) (in short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Tribunal') in Case No. 318/92 (old case No. 69/87) whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- in favour of the claimant - respondents and against the appellant insurance company as well as respondents Bhera Ram and Shambhu Singh, driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively. The Tribunal ordered the liabiiity to pay compensation to be joint and several. Briefly stated, facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal are that on 7.1.1987 an accident occurred at about 8.30 P.M. at Bassi in which one passenger Janwata Ram trevelling in Bus No. RJQ 9424 was to alight at Bassi and, therefore, the bus driver Bhera Ram.slowed down the speed of the bus at Bassi. However, before Janwata Ram could actually alight at the bus-...
Tag this Judgment!Jug Raj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC244; 2002(4)WLN538
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 purporting to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, who are transferees, on 3.10.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment dated 6.9.1991 (Annex. 4) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer be quashed etc. etc.2. It arises in the following circumstances:One Jeevraj Singh S/o Shri Shivnath Singh by caste Rajput, resident of Meda Upperla, Tehsil Jalore was having his agriculture land in village Meda Upperla and also in village Sehwaj. On coming into force of the Chapter-III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the proceedings were initiated against said Jeevraj Singh and after determining his ceiling area, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jalore came to the conclusion that Jeevraj Singh had no land in excess than the ceiling area applicable to him. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that the proceedings p...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Neelam Lodha Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR167(Raj)
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ, order or direction to direct the respondents to grant stayof the disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910 and not to treat the humble petitioner as the defaulter and not to recover the said amount or any part of it from the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks a writ order or direction to the effect that pending hearing of this petition this court pass appropriate order for prohibiting/restraining the respondents and their successor-in-office from taking any further steps or proceedings to recover the disputed demand of Rs: 1,10,43,910.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide annexure 6, dated February 7, 2002, represented before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Jaipur, Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-2, Jaipur, and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur, in the matter of the disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910 plus ...
Tag this Judgment!Sukkha Singh and anr. Vs. Mahal Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj21; 2002(4)WLC152; 2002(5)WLN43
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-5-2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Anupgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') whereby the application filed by the appellants under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the appellants have filed this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r), C.P.C.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully perused the order impugned.3. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for specific performance of agreement before the trial Court stating therein that respondent No. 1 Mahal Singh agreed to sell the land in question to the appellants for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 5-3-1986. since 1996, the appellants are requestingrespondent No. 1 Mahal Singh to execute the sale deed in their favour but respondent No. 1 has been avoiding and ultimat...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. Hem Raj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj589
Panwar, J. 1. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally heard and decided at the stage of orders.2. By judgment and award dated 19th May, 1999 learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') awarded compensation of rupees three lac in favour of the respondent claimants Hem Raj and Smt. Padma (for short 'the claimants' hereinafter), who are parents of deceased Kumari Niti.3. Brief facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that on 21st January, 1991 Kumari Niti and her friend Kumari Sheri Bhatnagar were proceeding on her Luna moped from Meera Giris College, Udaipur to their residence situated at Hiran Magri, Udaipur. At that relevant time a truck No. GJ-7/T-5881 came from opposite direction, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit luna moped due to which the occupants of the moped were thrown aside. While Kumari Niti was lying at the road side, she was o...
Tag this Judgment!Budhi Devi Vs. Chandu Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC473
Arun Madan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned District Judge, Dausa in Divorce Application No. 43/98, whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved on the ground of desertion. In this case, the parties were married on 13.5.1956. The divorce petition was filed in the year 1998 after about 42 years of solemnization of marriage. Three sons and a daughter were born out of the wedlock. Unfortunately all the three sons expired and the daughter is living with her in-laws. On the basis of the evidence on the record, the Trial Court dissolved the marriage on the ground of desertion. Since June, 1993, respondent-wife was not able to establish that she was living with the husband. It has been stated that the appellant is about 60 years of age while respondent is about 69 years and is a practising lawyer at Bandikui.2. The appeal was admitted on 21.2.2000. I am informed that respondent-husband has exp...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Sen Agarwal Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1397; 2002(4)WLC118; 2002(4)WLN638
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 5.4.91 with a prayer that the order dtd. 7.3.91 (Annex. 1) passed by respondent No. 2 by which resignation of the petitioner was accepted with effect from 20.10.84 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioner in their employment as if he never resigned from the service and he may be awarded ah consequential benefits; including pay fixation, seniority, further promotion etc, and any other appropriate relief which this Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) The petitioner was appointed as a Assistant Grade III (Accounts) in the pay scale of Rs. 290-485/- vide order dtd. 23.7.84 (Annex.3) passed by the Asstt. Manager for Sr. Regional Manager of the Corporation and was fixed at...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1455; 2003(2)WLC683; 2003(1)WLN164
Lal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Jagan Lal against the order dated 18.3.1996 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 27(B), 27(D), and 28(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner and against the order dated 12.8.1999 rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Act passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in criminal case No. 22/96.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the Drug Inspector, Udaipur filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur on 2.3.1996 alleging inter alia therein that M/s. Cotton Product of India, Udaipur is a partnership firm and Raj Kumar Lodha, Jagan Lal Lodha and Chhaganlal Jain are its partners. The said firm is doing the business of medicines in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur look cognizance for the aforesaid offences o...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi Vs. Mathura Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC519
Arun Madan, J.1. There is a delay of 33 days in filing the appeal. Notice of the appeal as also of application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were issued on 30.9.1994. By order dated 1.3.1997 it was directed that the matter regarding delay shall be decided alongwith the appeal. The appeal is awaiting hearing since 10.3.1995, when notices of the application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and so also of appeal were received duly served.2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 31.5.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Tonk in H.M.A. Case No. 44/88 by which the application filed by the respondent (husband) seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion was sought for but decreed in favour of the respondent on the ground of cruelty only.3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant (wife), which is now being decided finally by this...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Neelam Lodha Vs. Dy. Cit and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)171
K.S. Rathore, J.Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ, order or direction to direct the respondents, to grant stay on disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910 and not to treat the humble petitioner as the defaulter and not to recover the said amount or any part of it from the petitioner. Petitioner further seeks writ, order or direction to the effect that pending hearing of this petition this court pass appropriate order for prohibiting/restraining the respondents and their successor in office from taking any further steps or proceedings to recover the disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner vide Annexure 6, dated 7-2-2002, represented before the Commissioner (Central), Jaipur, Additional. Commissioner, Central Range-2 Jaipur and Deputy Commissioner Central Circle-2, Jaipur, in the matter of disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910 plus interest outstanding against the petitioner for the block period 1-4-1989 to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »