Rajasthan Court August 2004 Judgments
Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj349; 2004(4)WLC754
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The above mentioned accused appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dtd. 3.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 43/1998 by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' RI.2. By the same judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted another co-accused Smt. Bhagwati for offence under Section 302/109 I.P.C.3. The prosecution story may be stated like this:i) That on 30.8.1998 at about 2.30 P.M., Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/5) of Smt. Rama Devi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased No. 2) W/O Jai Singh (accused appellant) aged about 30 years, resident of Bhirani was recorded by P.W.8 Shiv Kumar, ASI of the Police Station Bhirani in which she has stated that in the morning when she was sleeping in her Kotha along with h...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Fateh Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ1663
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. These appeals are filed by appellant insurance company to challenge the award dated 5.8.2003 by which Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in Claim Case Nos. 521 and 522 of 1996 awarded compensation of Rs. 59,000 and Rs. 3,08,100 to the claimants of the respective claims.3. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that though the cover note for the vehicle in question was issued on 16.8.1996 and accident occurred on 18.8.1996, but the cheque given by the insured was dated 19.8.1996 and policy was issued to the insured by appellant insurance company on 19.8.1996, a day after the accident. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the appellant on the date of accident, the appellant company did not receive the premium for insurance of the vehicle and also did not issue any policy to cover the risk of the vehicle, therefore, the appellant company was wrongly held liable by the Tribunal to pay the compensation amount to th...
Tag this Judgment!Bagtawar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2636
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of instant revision petition under Section 397, Cr. P. C. the accused has challenged the order dated 26-4-2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. Ist Class, Ladnu framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304A, I. P. C.2. It is alleged that on 26-4-2003 a Conductor of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation lodged an F. I. R. at police station Ladnu stating inter alia that the bus bearing No. 999/RJ-22 left for Pali at about 8.45 p.m. for Sujangarh. The bus was driven by the accused Bagtawar Singh. The bus left the bus-stand Deedwana at about 7.30 p.m. from the village Sanwarad. Seven passengers boarded the bus for Ladnu. He issued tickets to all of them. One of them occupied the seat near the gate. When the bus reached near Bankaliya bus-stand at about 9 p.m., all of sudden, one of the passengers opened the gate and jumped out. On asking by him and the other passengers the accused stopped the bus. The person who jumpe...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Soni and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: I(2007)ACC906; 2006ACJ1661
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. In Appeal No. 892 of 2003 only point raised by the appellant is short one.3. As per Sub-section (c) of Section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988'), the owner and the driver are under obligation to furnish information about the insurance policy number and period of its validity, date, time and place of accident, particulars of person injured or killed in the accident, name of the driver and particulars of his driving licence to the insurance company, in case the insured vehicle met with an accident. In the present case, owner and driver of the vehicle failed to provide this information to the insurance company. Therefore, according to appellant insurance company, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the owner and driver of the vehicle and the Tribunal should have drawn presumption that either the driver had no driving licence at the relevant time or it was not a valid...
Tag this Judgment!Mullu Ram Vs. Kashi Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj46
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the order dated 29th July, 2004 by which the trial Court dismissed the Injunction application filed by the appellant-plaintiff.3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract dated 13-1-1984 before the trial Court on 23rd Dec, 1999. According to appellant, the appellant Is In possession of the land In dispute in pursuance of the agreement to sell and, therefore, his possession Is protected by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It Is submitted that because the land was not transferred in the name of the appellant, therefore, the name of the respondent continued in the revenue record. It is also submitted that the trial Court Ignored the important material piece of evidence, which is the report given by the Tehslldar of the area showing the possession of the appellant. It is also submitted that the trial Court was under influence at the order pas...
Tag this Judgment!Kirorilal Vs. Smt. Kishori Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj123; 2004(4)WLC464
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.9.1993 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Karauli set- aside the judgment and decree of eviction dated 2.6.1988 passed by learned Civil Judge, Karauli.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 11.5.1977 against seven defendants who are legal heirs of the original tenant Sh. Chiranji Lal with the averments that the suit shop was let out to Sh. Chiranji Lal on 1.1.1965 at monthly rent of Rs. 5/- by the original landlord Sh. Ramhet. The suit shop was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 22.11. 1975. Eviction was sought on the grounds of second default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff.3. Vide written statements the defendants having admitted the tenancy denied both the grounds of eviction.4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. Evidence was recorded...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Purohit Vs. the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC110; RLW2005(2)Raj1083; 2004(4)WLC766
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This is second round of litigation. Earlier also the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which is registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1418/1991 before this Court and was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.9.1994. While disposing of the writ petition this Court observed as under:'I have considered over the matter. The facts involved in the present case are disputed questions of facts and cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has a remedy of filing a civil suit. The only observation which can be made in the present case is that for the settlement of the accounts, the petitioner has to approach the respondents along with the statement of accounts and if any error is pointed out they would immediately correct the same. The question of waiving interest is on the basis of certain norms which are already settled and the directions cannot be given by this Court. If the petitioner is able to satisfy the respon...
Tag this Judgment!J.M. International Vs. Magan Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: [2005]60SCL404(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-company and perused the entire material available on the record of the petition.2. This is the Company Petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 filed by the petitioner-company with a prayer that the respondent-company M/s. Magan Roller Flour Mills Private Limited be wound up under the provisions of Section 443 of the Companies Act, 1956.3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-company I am of the opinion that in such matters the effective and proper remedy is to file a suit. It is the developing tendency amongst litigants more particularly dealing with the companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 to make this winding-up jurisdiction of the Court as a forum for recovery of their dues. This is not the purpose and object of the Companies Act, 1956. They are making this winding-up jurisdiction of the court as an executing court for recovery of their dues. At the threat of this winding...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Abhay Kumar Bhandia ( ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2753; 2004(4)WLC343
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This first appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree of eviction dated 4.5.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 3.12.1980 with the averments that the suit house No. L-5-A situated at Prithvi Raj Road, Jaipur was let-out to the defendants at monthly rent of Rs. 11,500/- in the year 1976. Thereafter, first floor, second floor and l/3rd portion of the basement was vacated by the defendants. The remaining portion of the basement and the ground floor is with the defendants. The defendants have got a huge building at Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur and the plaintiffs require the remaining premises for their printing and stationary business which is being carried out in rented premises presently. This requirement is reasonable and bonafide. The defendants have got suitable alternative acco...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Choudhary and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj18; RLW2005(1)Raj167; 2004(4)WLC388
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the construction of Salim All Nature Interpretation Center at Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur. The petitioners seek a direction for demolition of the construction and for this purpose, have prayed for the following reliefs :'(1) By issue of appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to take immediate action against the illegal construction of huge building in the name of Salim Ali Nature Interpretation Center at Keoladev National Park, Bharatpur and the aforesaid illegal construction which has already been done may kindly be directed to be demolished and the debris of the aforesaid illegal construction may also kindly be directed to be removed at the cost of the respondents.(2) By issue of appropriate writ, order or direction it may be directed that a detailed enquiry will be held in the matter so as to point out the responsibility of the concerned person who was instrumental in starting and restarting ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »