Rajasthan Court January 2004 Judgments
Bhagwan Hiranandani Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1304; 2004(2)WLC686
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing the impugned suspension order dated 1-7-2002 (Annex.1).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that while working as the District Transport Officer, applications were made on 30-9-95 by Mr. Shamsher Khan and Hafix Mohammed for assignment of new registration mark in respect of motor vehicles, i.e. buses. According to the petitioner, all the requisite documents were produced by the applicants and he sent telegrams to the Registering Authority, Delhi for verification of genuineness of the No Objection Certificates stipulating 15 days time for reply but no reply was received and as such, after expiry of 18 days therefrom, he assigned new registration marks to the vehicles. An FIR was lodged in such matters on 3-3-97 against the petitioner and co-accused Sarvashri B.L. Meena, D.T.O., Giriraj Kumar Gupta, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Norat Mal Agarwal, D.T.O. for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 48...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewan Lal Sinora Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1635; 2004(2)WLC676
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petitions, petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order dated 20-8-1999 (Annex. 12); directing respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion after granting them relaxation in experience and declaring Column No. 6 of serial No. 2 of the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Technical Training Service Rules, 1975 (for short, 'the Rules, 1975') ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since identical questions of facts and law are involved in these four writ petitions, they are being decided by this common order taking SBCWP No. 3184/1999 as the leading case.(2). Petitioners are possessing the qualification of Diploma in Engineering trade. They were initially appointed on the post of Superintendent I.T.I. and thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Director. They were promoted on ad hoc/temporary basis to the post of Deputy Director vide order dated 17-2-1997 whereas respondent No. 4 was promoted to this post vi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.V. Jewellers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Raj)495
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on an application filed under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The following questions are proposed for reference:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the evidence sought to be relied upon by the Department suffers from lack of authenticity as to its genuineness when such documents were duly authenticated by the Indian Consulate General in Geneva (Switzerland)?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions simply relying on the statement of Shri P.C. Dhadda which contained a number of contradictions?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the finding of the Tribunal is not perverse when the Dept. has sufficient evidence to justify the additions which has not been considered as genuine by the Tribunal?'3. Mr. Ranka, senior learned counsel for the res...
Tag this Judgment!Buddhi Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4420; RLW2004(2)Raj1338; 2004(2)WLC405
S.K. Sharma, J.1. Instant appeal has been filed by seven appellants questioning the correctness of the judgment dated July 7, 2000 of the learned Special Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge Alwar whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-Buddhi Lal, Dinesh, Rajendra, Ashok Kumar, Brij Mohan, Bhagchand & Om Prakash:-Under Section 302/149 IPC Each to suffer Imprisonment for Life and fine ofRs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six monthsRigorous Imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years.Under Section 447 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.Under Section 325/149 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for fiveyears and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to furthersuffer three months Rigorous Imprisonment.Under Section 324/149 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years.Under Section 323/149 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrentl...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vandana and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ2124
S.K. Keshote, J.1. In an accident that occurred on 16.6.1998 one Suresh Kumar died and Vandana sustained injuries. Two separate claim applications were filed and decided by a common award dated 30.9.99 of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baran (for short, 'the Tribunal'). Feeling aggrieved of the same, two separate appeals being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 128 and 671 of 2000 came to be filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the same have been decided by learned single Judge by separate orders dated 18.5.2000 and 3.7.2000 and against those orders of the learned single Judge these two appeals have been filed by the appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short, 'the appellant company').2. Since the dispute involved in both these appeals is identical, the same are taken up for hearing together and being decided by this common order.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the memo of appeals, the orders of the learned single Judge and the award of the learned T...
Tag this Judgment!Gobari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1645; 2004(2)WLC52
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.(1). The appellant was indicted before the learned Judge Special Court (Women Atricities & Dowry Cases) Kota in Sessions Case No. 378/97 for having committed murder of Madhu. Learned Judge vide judgment dated January 20, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-Section 302 IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and fineRs. 2000/-, in default further suffer six monthsrigorous imprisonment.Section 376 IPC To suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment andfines Rs. 2000/-, in default further suffer sixmonths rigorous imprisonment.Section 201 IPC To suffer three years rigorous imprisonment andfine Rs. 1000/-, in default further sufferthree months rigorous imprisonment.Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.(2). Madhu, a girl of 16 years of age, who left her house on May 4, 1997 at 5.00 PM for jungle in order to attend the call of nature, did not return back and her half naked dead body was found lying in a trench. A written report (Ex.P-5) was lodged by informa...
Tag this Judgment!Nenu Vs. Chandgi Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ1955
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Government Advocate. Nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. Brief facts of the case are that the accident occurred on 10.7.1979 causing death of one Bhanwari Lal, who was of the age of 13 years only. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the respondent No. 1 Chandgi Ram was driving the vehicle Motor Grader without the permission of the respondent State and its officers. The Tribunal held that respondent No. 1 is personally liable for the compensation, The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6 to 7 per day and held that the deceased would have given Rs. 3 per day to his mother. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded total compensation of Rs. 16,200.3. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal committed illegality in exonerating the State from the liability. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, in fact, the respondent No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: I(2004)DMC746; RLW2004(2)Raj1319; 2004(2)WLC61
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant and co-accused Gyarsi were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 15/2001 (5/98) for having committed murder of Smt. Parvati. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated August 23, 2001 acquitted co-accused Gyarsi but convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-Under Section 302 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life arid fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. Under Section 498A IPC To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine Rs. 500 in default to further suffer 1, 1/2 months simple imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On November 19, 1997 while Smt. Parvati (now deceased) was admitted in JLN Hospital Ajmer, SHO Police Station Alwar Gate Ajmer recorded her parcha bayan (Ex.P-12). In the Parcha Bayan Parvati stated that a day before i.e. on November 18, 1997 at 11.00 PM her husband Madan (appellant) poured kerosine ...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Bhagwati Re-rolling Mill Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissione ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR417]; (2004)IIILLJ387Raj; 2004WLC(Raj)UC314
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record of the writ petition and the memo of special appeal. In the writ petition, out of which this special appeal arises, challenge was made by the petitioner appellant to the order dated December 5, 1979 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the respondent No. 1 (for short, the respondent No. 1, Commissioner) under which it declined to grant the benefit of infancy as provided under Section 16(1)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act, 1952'). The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge under the impugned order, thus this special appeal. 2. Whether a particular establishment is entitled for the infancy benefits as provided under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act, 1952, is purely a question of fact. The respondent No. 1, Commissioner, on the basis of appreciation of material produced on the record, recorded a fin...
Tag this Judgment!Lali Devi Vs. Hanuman and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC379; III(2005)ACC547; 2005ACJ1101; RLW2004(2)Raj1221; 2004(1)WLC725
A.C. Goyal, J.1. The appeal claimant Smt. Devi has preferred this appeal against the Award dated 31.3.1992, whereby Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the Claim Petition No. 895/1991, treating it to be beyond prescribed period of limitation.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the claimants wife, mother and father of the deceased Bhagwan Sahai, filed a claim petition on 26.7.1991, claiming a sum of Rs. 20,15,000/- with the averments that Bhagwan Sahai died in a road accident on 8.6.1990. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation act was also submitted with a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition.3. The Insurance Company opposed this application. The learned Tribunal held that in view of the Provisions of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for Short the 'Act'), such application for compensation shall be filed within six months of the occurrence of the accident and the Tribunal may entertain the application after t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »