Rajasthan Court October 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj934; 2004(4)WLC797
R.P. Vyas, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the Award dated March 29, 1993, passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Dacoity Affected Area), Bharatpur, in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 27/91.2. The facts of the instant appeal are that claimant- respondents filed a claim petition under Section 110(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur on 17.10.88.3. In the said claim petition, inter alia, it is alleged that the Gyan Chand died in a road accident between village Tholia and Lakhanpur, near Nursery on 14.9.88. Deceased Shri Gyan Chand who was Head Master in the Upper Primary School, village Mayee was going on the road from village Mayee on his cycle when at the named spot, he was hit by a Motor Cycle No. RN1 8631 which was being driven rashly, carelessly and negligently at high speed by the appellant Dayashanker, the said Gyan Chand was hit so hard that he fell down from the cycle an...
Kalli and ors. Vs. Indra Raj Baira and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ887; 2004WLC(Raj)UC789
S.K. Keshote and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed by claimants-appellants against the judgment dated 6.10.1998 of learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 923 of 1998.2. Brief facts leading to filing of this special appeal are that on 10.9.1995 in a motor vehicle accident Bhauri Lal sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.3. Claimant-appellant No. 1 is widow of the deceased. Claimant-appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are minor children of deceased and the claimant-appellant Nos. 6 and 7 are his parents.4. Deceased Bhauri Lal at the relevant time was about 28 years of age and was in permanent service of Police Department holding the post of Sub-Inspector. His monthly salary was Rs. 3,765 at the time of his death.5. Claimants-appellants were totally dependent upon income of the deceased. They filed M.A.C. No. 1232 of 1995 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter...
Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bhagwati Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC380
R.P. Vyas, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated March 29, 1993, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Dacoity Affected Area), Bharatpur, in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 27/31.2. The facts of the instant appeal are that claimant-respondents filed a claim petition under Section 110(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur on 17.10.1988.3. In the said claim petition, inter alia, it is alleged that one Gyan Chand died in a road accident between village Tholia and Lahanpur, near Nursery on 14.9.1988. Deceased Shri Gyan Chand who was Head Master in the upper primary school, village Mayee was going on the road from village Mayee on his cycle when at the named spot, he was hit by a motorcycle No. RNI 8631 which was being driven rashly, carelessly and negligently at high speed by the appellant Dayashanker. The said Gyan Chand was hit so hard that he fell down from the cycle and ...
Kumari Mamta and anr. Vs. Sardar Baljeet Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC300; 2005(1)WLC176
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the award dated January 24,1995, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the claim-petition of the claimants was dismissed.2. Before I proceed to discuss the matter, it is relevant to mention the relevant facts of the claim petition. The claim petition was filed by minor Kumari Mamta D/o Shambhu Dayal through her mother and guardian Smt. Geeta Sharma before the Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was registered as MACT Case No. 578/89.3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants' father-Shambhu Dayal, who had been selected for training of Senior Teacher, was taking training at that relevant time of the accident and the training was likely to be completed in the month of May, 1979. After the training was over, if appointed as a teacher, he was likely to get Rs. 700/- per month.4. On July, 16, 1979, at 9.30 a.m., Shambhudayal had to leave for Mahapura. He went to the bus stand, where on...
Ram Swaroop and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1066
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants (hereinafter described as 'accused') who were convicted and sentenced as under by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Tract), Gangapur City in Sessions Case Nos. 6/2001 and 45/2002 respectively vide judgments dated July 20, 2001 and May 31, 2003, have impugned the said findings in the instant appeals.In Sessions Case No. 6/2001 decided on July 20. 2001 :Accused Ramswaroop :Under Section 302, IPC :To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six Months.Under Section 307, IPC :To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Four Years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for Three Months.Under Section 148, IPC :To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One Year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for One Month.Accused Om Prakash, Ramlal, Girraj, Kalla, Mulya alias Moolchand, Radhey alias Radheshyam, Jailal and Pyarelal :Unde...
Ramnarayan Vs. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR264]; (2005)IILLJ116Raj; 2005(1)WLC370
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on May 28, 2003 against the respondent with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated September 11, 2000 (Annex. P/2) passed by the respondent No. 1 Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') by which the claim of the respondent No. 3 Baldeo Singh filed under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1936') for Rs. 9500/- was decreed be quashed and set aside and similarly, the appellate Judgment dated December 9, 2002 (Annex. P/3) passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2) by which the order (Annex. P/2) dated September 11, 2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 Authority was upheld, be also quashed and set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances:On January 8, 1997, the respondent No....
Nihchal Dass and Company and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1597; 2005(1)WLC525
K.S. Rathore, J.1. These are 19 similar writ petitions involving similar question of law. At the request of the respective parties the aforesaid writ petitions are being decided by this common order. Facts of the case of Nihchal Dass & Company and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2465/2004) are taken as leading case.2. The petitioners are all carrying the business of Catering at various stations of the Jaipur Division of North Western Railway. They are providing catering service to traveling passengers, Earlier also the respondents increased license fees and therefore, the Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4123/1991, which was decided on 11.12.1992. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under.'This writ petition is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the respondents would charge the licence fee from the members of the petitioner federation of the basis of increase by 25% to 50% in the...
Parpati Bai Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ241
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The instant first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.7.1987 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff-appellant for recovery of Rs. 36,000.2. Briefly put, the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit with the averments in the plaint that the defendant was the Corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956. The plaintiff husband late Belaram submitted a proposal for insurance of his life for a sum of Rs. 25,000 on 29.11.1976 to Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ajmer Division, Ajmer (L.I.C for short). According to the plaintiff, the proposal was accepted and consequently first yearly instalment of extra premium amounting to Rs. 2,245 paid by the proposer was adjusted and policy No. 25833199 under the Table and Term 24-15 was issued to Belaram commencing the risk from 25.2.1977. The second yearly instalment due on 25.2.1978 was also paid and the policy rema...
Santosh Mittal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj486; 2005(1)WLC52
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. The petitioners' claim that the carbonated drinks manufactured by PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are contaminated and laced with pesticides, which are dangerous to human life. The petitioners seek a ban on their sale and use by the public at large. It is also the case of the petitioners that the drinks manufactured by these companies contain suspended impurities. In order to substantiate their point they had presented before us few bottles of soft drinks alleged to have been manufactured by PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, which on ocular examination show presence of foreign material. But that we need to ignore because the issue cannot be conclusively determined in the absence of the evidence of an expert. It has been argued in these petitions by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the manufactures ought to make a complete and full disclosure of the composition and contents of their products including the presence, if any, of the pesticides and chemicals therein, so that t...
Alim Ahuja Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas104(Raj); [2005]62SCL110(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Petitioners filed this petition under Section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956') in the matter of notices dated 12th of July, 1999 of the respondent Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. In the petition the petitioners prayed for grant of following relief,--'1. To relieve the petitioners under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act from having to comply with the provisions and procedures of the said Act, and other relevant Acts.2. The petitioners submit that not being directors with any functional responsibility, they cannot be 'officers who are in default' under Section 5 of the Companies Act, in any case.3. To direct Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, to desist from instituting or continuing proceedings under the Companies Act against the petitioners, with particular reference to the impugned notices Annexures 1 and 2.4. To issue such order or directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem proper in their wisdom and experience in the special ci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »