Rajasthan Court January 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arjun and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC881; 2006ACJ2412
Dalip Singh, J.1. The matter comes up for orders on the stay application, however, at the joint request made by the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard for final hearing as the arguments of the stay application and the main appeal are same.2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ram Singh met with an accident on 27.5.2000 which involved two motor vehicles, i.e., trucks; one bearing registration No. RJ 01-G 4526 and another one bearing registration No. PB 7-B 8695. The first truck was insured with the appellant, i.e., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the later truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur, i.e., respondent No. 6. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, while deciding the issue Nos. 3 and 5 has held that the age of deceased was 22 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. Since the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident a multiplier of 12 was applied in consonance with the judgment of their Lordsh...
Krishna Gopal Vs. Ishwar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC551
Dalip Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.2. At the joint request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 26.6.1996 the appellant Krishna Gopal met with a motor accident, as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries including fracture of his right leg. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, the appellant remained hospitalised. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur has found that as per the evidence produced before it, there is 29% disability of the right leg. The appellant was 26 years of age at the time of accident and was a labour whose income as per the award was Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand) per month.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded under the head of loss of income a consolidated amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only) + addl. amount...
Gopal Chand Singhal Vs. Bhambhal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC554
Dalip Singh, J.1. This misc. application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-appellant in SBCMA No. 311 /1994 which was decided by this Court vide order dated 24.11.1997 partly allowing the appeal.2. In this application, the applicant-appellant has prayed that at the time of filing of the aforesaid appeal an amount of Rs. 15,125/- was deposited in the Court on 13.1.1994 vide Challan No. PRR 67 and the copy of which has been placed on record. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that in view of the fact that the appeal was allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal has been satisfied by the Insurance Company, the amount of Rs. 15,125/- deposited by the appellant may be ordered to be refunded to the applicant-appellant.3. A notice of the aforesaid application was issued to the respondents including the Insurance Company.4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-appellant has drawn my attention to the letter of the Insurance Company dated 27.1.2000 wherein ...
Vimla Vs. Moolchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC72
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 4.2.1994 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, Distt. Jaipur in MACT Case No. 156/1992 filed by the appellant for compensation for the injury received by her while travelling in the bus bearing registration No. HNM 2755 owned by the respondent No. 2. It is on account of the said injury, her right hand was amputated and she filed the claim petition.2. However, the learned tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 1 has held that the negligence was not of the driver of the bus owned by the respondent No. 2 but that of the vehicle approaching from the opposite direction and it was also contributory negligence of the appellant herself who was sitting with her hand protruding out of the window and she received the said injury on account of being struck by the vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the claim petition ought to have been filed against the owne...
Trilok Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1510; 2005(1)WLC749
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The abovementioned two writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them common question of law is involved.FACTS OF WRIT PETITION NO. 6199/2003This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 29.10.2003 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dtd. 8.10.1998 (Annex. 10) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Dy. Inspector General of Police. Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed and order dtd. 25.7.1997 (Annex.7) passed by the respondent No. 3 (the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur) by which the punishment of censure was imposed on the petitioner be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as putforward by him in this writ petition is as follows:The petitioner entered in the services of Government of Rajasthan being appointed as Mechanic in the Rajasthan Police Motor Transport worksh...
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Raj)64
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of this appellate order in ITA No. 162/Jp/1996 relating to the asst. yr. 1994-95 in the case of applicant-assessee :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in violation of the audi alteram partem rule, was right in holding that the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the adjustments made by the AO under Section 143(1)(a) was reasonable and justified ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal in omitting to give its finding in respect of the contentions raised, is not vitiated in law ?'2. The applicant-assessee at the relevant time was the public sector corporation controlled by the. Central Government. It has filed a return of income for the asst. yr. 1994-95. While issuing the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) as per the provisions prevailing at the relevant time, the AO purported to make adjustment under Section 143...
Roopa @ Rup Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2029; 2005(2)WLC538
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since these two matters relate to the incident occurred on October 31, 1990, we propose to decide them by a common judgment.APPEAL NO. 527/2000:2. The appellants eight in number were the accused on the file of learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) and Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 18/1991. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 6, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-Jandel Singh:Under Section 148 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 324/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 323/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and...
Laxman and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2075; 2005(2)WLC516
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This appeal impugns the judgment dated June 7, 2003 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track) Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 67/2002 (Consolidated Sessions Case No. 68/2002), whereby the appellants (herein after described as 'accused') were convicted and sentenced as under:-Narayan:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous Imprisonment for one month.Laxman & Roshan:Under Section 323 IPC:Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.2. As per the prosecution story, the SHO Police Station Diholi recorded parcha bayan of Ramdas (Pw.1), wherein he stated that today in the morning at 7.30 AM while he was pouring fertilizer with Ramnath, Gomti and Dhani Ram the neighbouring field holder Narayan Mallah dismantled the wall of the field, which was objected by Dhani Ram. Thereupon Narayan started abusing and asked Roshan to call persons from the house. Roshan called Laxma...
Tola (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1054]; RLW2005(1)Raj472; 2005(3)SLJ264(Raj); 2005(1)WLC753
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 1.10.2002 against the respondent with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order of direction the judgment and award dtd. 19.2.2002 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 3) be modified to the extent the the petitioner be granted the relief of reinstatement in place of amount of compensation of Rs. 35,000/- as awarded by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 3) to the petitioner.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) That the petitioner was initially appointed as Beldar with effect from 1.10.82 and she continued in the services upto 15.5.1987.ii) That the services of the petitioner were retrenched w.e.f. 15.5.1987.iii) That further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government made a reference of the dispute to the respondent No. 3 vide...
Richhpal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj682; 2005(1)WLC548
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Thousands of teachers by way of instant bunch of Writ petitions, as mentioned in Schedule appended to each petition, have challenged the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2004 providing for selection of Teachers Gr.III by the Public Service Commission and have prayed for restoring the autonomy to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the matter of selection & appointment of primary school teachers. Petitioner-teachers have also prayed for restoration of the Notification dated 14.7.2003 providing to fill-up the posts of Teacher Gr.III to the extent of 75% from Para Teachers/Shiksha Sahyogi and 25% from the open market. It is further prayed that their services be regularized as Teacher Gr.III, who have been in continuous service for a considerable time as Para Teacher/Shiksha Sahyogi.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The factual matrix in juxtaposition with the relevant rules may be set out...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »