Rajasthan Court July 2004 Judgments
Dhapu Devi Vs. Jvvnl and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC232; RLW2005(1)Raj107; 2004(4)WLC491
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The brief facts of the case are that Bhonri Lal son of the petitioner was working in the field on 1.9.2003. The employees of the electricity department were converting the LT line into HT line. At about 4.30 p.m. The employee of the respondents told that work has been completed and they are going to start the line. At about 4.45 p.m., when Bhonri Lal and other farmers were working in the field then, suddenly due to puncture of the insulator in 11 KV electric line, electric current flew in the field and Bhonri Lal as well as other farmers, who were working in the field sustained heavy shock of electric current. Bhonri Lal died on the spot and other 9 persons were seriously injured.2. The brother of the deceased, who is also injured, lodged the FIR No. 319/2003 at Police Station Bassi on 3.9.2003 for offence Under Section 304A and 337 IPC against the officials of the electricity department.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention towards Annex. 2 whereb...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Agarwal Steel Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC41(Raj); 2004(5)WLC157
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer against judgment and order dated March 19, 2002 (annexure 5) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No. 1065/1997 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:On August 26, 1996, near Banar Check-post, District Jodhpur, the vehicle No. DIG/6229, which was carrying 162 pieces of CI pipes and fittings belonging to the respondent M/s. Agarwal Steel Industries, was intercepted and checked by the petitioner-Assistan Commercial Taxes Officer and during checking, it was found that the declaration form S.T. 18A was not accompanied with the goods. Since the goods in transit were not accompanied with the declaration form S.T. 18A, therefore, a notice Under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994') for violation of the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Arya Samaj Shri Karanpur Vs. Prithvi Raj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj67; RLW2004(1)Raj79; 2004(4)WLC244
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar in suit on 53/89 by which the suit of the plaintiff filed Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1963') against the respondents No. 1 Prithvi Raj (hereinafter referred to as the defendant No. 1) and No. 2 Jawahar Lal (hereinafter referred to as the defendant No. 2) was dismissed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-On 26.7.1989, the plaintiff filed a suit Under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 for recovery of possession of shops No. 8 and 9 situated in Karanpur district Sri Ganganagar against the defendants (mainly against defendant No. 1) stating inter-alia:-(i) That Jagdish Chandra, Advocate (PW2) was President of Arya Samaj, Sri Karanpur and he had the power to filed the suit.(ii) that s...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz Qureshi Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj164; 2004(4)WLC320
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The grievance projected by the petitioner in the instant wit petition is that despite the service rendered by the petitioner from 1988 till June 30, 2001 the retiral benefits have been declined by the respondent University vide communication dated August 24, 2001 (Ann.7) under the pretext of Regulations 22 and 29 of the University of Rajasthan Pension Regulations, 1990 (for short 'Regulations'). 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition the petitioner after having served as Senior Stenographer from 1949 to 1970 under the Govt. of India (Staff of Central Public Health Engineering Research Institute) and State of Rajasthan undertakings as Personal Assistant, joined University of Rajasthan (for short 'University') on September 17, 1988. The services of petitioner were extended from time to time. In the meting held on September 24, 1991 the University resolved to appoint the petitioner as Stenographer Grade-II on substantive post in Academic Staff College v...
Tag this Judgment!Dhapu (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR140]; RLW2005(1)Raj251; 2004(4)WLC294
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, who is the mother of deceased employee Vishnu Kant, seeks family pension in the instant writ petition.2. Contextual facts depict that late son of the petitioner Shri Vishnu Kant was appointed as Class-IV employee (Jaldhari) vide order dated February 25,9185. While he was in service he died on November 3,1995. At the time of his death he was posted in Animal Husbandry Department, Bada Khera Ajmer. The deceased was Bachelor and Ided leaving behind his mother Dhapu Bai (petitioner) as the only legal representative. The petitioner approached respondents to grant family pension but no justice was done to her. When for a long time family pension was not granted, the petitioner made representation on July 31, 2002, which was returned with the endorsement the petitioner did not fall within the definition of family/dependent thus was not entitled to family pension. The Deputy Director however vide letter dated February 14,2002 asked the petitioner to subm...
Tag this Judgment!Charan Sharan Khemka Vs. Achint Chemicals and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR72(Raj); RLW2005(1)Raj734; 2004(4)WLC252
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.9.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara in civil execution case No. 12/99 by which the execution application filed by the petitioner under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') read with Order 21 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-On 26.7.1999, the petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 36 of the Act of 1996 before the Court of District Judge, Bhilwara stating inter-alia that the so-called arbitration award dated 14.6.1996 be treated as an arbitral award deemed to have been passed under the provisions of the Act of 1996 and therefore, it has got the status or shape of decree as defined under the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, it was executable under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC.The gist of the so-called arbitration award dated 14.6.199...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Singhal and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj100; RLW2005(2)Raj1450; 2005(1)WLC540
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. Since in all these aforesaid writ petitions common question of law is involved, and the same are being decided by this common order.2. The facts of the case of Suresh Chandra Singhal are as under :--The petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Board, Gangapur City on 20-8-2000 from Ward No. 9. Thereafter, he was elected as a Chairman of the Municipal Board, Gangapur City on 22-8-2000.3. The controversy arose only when the notice dated 16-2-2004 came to be issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Local self, Jaipur, to the petitioner by which five charges were levelled against the petitioner on the basis of the alleged inquiry report of the Regional Dy. Director and the explanation of the petitioner was sought within a period of seven days of the notice failing which proceedings under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short, the Act of 1959) would be initiated against the petitioner.4. On receipt of the notice, the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakanta and ors. Vs. Ashfak Ahmad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ1128; 2004(4)WLC267
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the appeal.2. This is the claimants' special appeal in which prayer has been made for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,53,000 in favour of the claimants-appellants. For enhancement of that amount, appeal has been filed but the learned single Judge dismissed the same, thus this special appeal,3. It is not in dispute that deceased Prem Narayan was in permanent employment of the then Rajasthan State Electricity Board working as meter reader. On 29.2.1988 he died in a motor accident. His salary was Rs. 1,536 per month and he was aged 40 years. Though there is no dispute that he was in permanent employment but future prospects have not been taken into consideration both by learned Tribunal and the learned single Judge while determin...
Tag this Judgment!Shravan Soni Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1826; 2004WLC(Raj)UC666
F.C. Bansal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the impugned judgment.2. It is contended by learned counsel that prior to the alleged incident, the appellant was not known to 1'Wl injured Ramniwas, PW 2 Omprakash and PW 3 Chhitarmal Sharma. Though the appellant was named in the FIR but in their statements the aforesaid witnesses, stated that before the incident, they did not know the appellant. No test-identification parade of appellant Shravan Soni was held during investigation. It is also contended that as per the prosecution story, appellant Shravan and co-accused Ashish Jain came in a car in front of the office of Chhitarmal Sharma. While sitting in the car, Shravan Soni fired a shot which hit the neck of injured Ramniwas. Both the accused persons were put on trial but Ashish Jain has been acquitted of all the charges by the trial Court. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the app...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhu @ Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2731; 2004(4)WLC554
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant appeals impugn the judgment dated October 16, 2001 of the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Pratapgarh whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-(i) Lachhu @ Laxmi Narain under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act, 1985) N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; in default, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years.(ii) Nathu Lal under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years.2. The prosecution story runs as under:-A complaint was filed by one N.L. Paned with the averments that on receiving secret information, a search party was constituted comprising of the officials of Narcotics Department, that got bus No. RJ-03 P-0177 haulted on March 30, 1999 near village Chiklad on Prat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »