Rajasthan Court October 2005 Judgments
Parvati Devi and ors. Vs. ZahooruddIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC592
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur ('Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 207/99 vide award dated 2nd March, 2001.2. Claimants are wife, four minor children and parents of deceased Revarmal, aged 30 years, who was a skilled labourer engaged in shoemaking and earning Rs. two-three thousand per month, as alleged in claim petition. On 25th March, 1999 the deceased while travelling in offending bus DL-1/P-0764, met with an accident having taken place due to rash and negligent act of driver and conductor of the offending bus, and he fell down out of the bus, thereby died on the spot.3. The Tribunal after taking note of material on record, awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 2.51 lacs including costs of Rs. 1,000 with interest 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till actual payment, vide impugned award.4. Mr. L.L. Gupta, Counsel for claimants urged that despite specific statement of Parvati (AW 1)...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Chandra Mohan Chamoli and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC273
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against common award dated 15.2.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City ('Tribunal') in MACT Case Nos. 120/98 and 113/98, having arisen out of same accident in which their parents died, as such are being disposed of by this common order. Instant appeals have been filed by claimants (three sons) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Tribunal.2. Under the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs in Case No. 113/98 and Rs. one lac in Case No. 120/1998 as compensation respectively for the death of Rameshwar (father) and Geeta (mother), who are parents of three major sons (claimants). On 7.5.1998 while they were travelling in offending Bus No. UP/07/G/0513 for pilgrimage to Badrinath Dham and on return to Rishikesh, near village Lagasu PS Karanprayag, due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, the Bus fell into Alknanda river, thereby both of them died in the accident.3. Two claim petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakala and ors. Vs. Kanwar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: III(2006)ACC96; RLW2006(2)Raj1338; 2006(2)WLC730
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. On 10.9.1989, while returning with three friends on his Motorcycle, Kesar Dev met with an accident with a Bus driven by respondent No. 1. Consequently, Kesar Dev alongwith two other riders expired on the spot. The fourth person, namely Vijay Kumar sustained grievous injuries. Kesar Dev's parents and brother and sisters filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, wherein they sought a compensation for Rs. 21,23,000/-. Since the Bus was owned by the Delhi Transportation Corporation, therefore the Bus driver and the Corporation were arrayed as respondents in the said claim petition.2. In its written statement, the Corporation contended that the deceased was riding the Motorcycle alongwith three other persons. According to them, the accident occurred because suddenly a goat kid ran across the road, which the deceased tried to avoid. While trying to avoid the kid, the deceased dashed against the coming Bus. Therefore, according to them it ...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Sharma (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Mahavir Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC283; RLW2006(2)Raj929
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (District Jaipur) ('Tribunal') vide Award dated 6.9.2001 in MACT Case No. 62/01.2. Claimants are wife, minor son and parents of deceased Ashok Kumar Sharma, aged 28 years, who died on 25.9.2000 in an accident, which took place due to rash & negligent driving of offending jeep No. RJ-21-C-6498. As alleged in claim petition and as per salary certificates (Exhibit 12 to 14), deceased was a part time Accountant engaged with private Firms being paid monthly pay of Rs. 2,500/- by each of three Firms. One Ghan Shyam (AW 4) with whom deceased was employed on part time basis for doing work of accounts of the Firm, in his statement deposed that the deceased was also doing accounts work of other private Firms.3. The Tribunal after taking note of material on record assessed his monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sobhag Mal JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj66; 2006(1)WLC21
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The question for consideration in the instant writ petition relates to the quantum of compensation to be paid to the husband of the deceased-housewife, whose death is attributed to medical negligence.2. Contextual fact depict that the petitioner got his pregnant wife Kanno alias Kanta Devi admitted in the Govt. Hospital Sawai Madhopur who gave birth to twins but excessive bleeding after delivery could not be controlled on account of negligence of the doctors and she died. The Director, Medical and Health Services, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur directed the Deputy Director, Medical and Health Services, Jaipur to conduct inquiry in the matter. The Deputy Director after recording the statements of doctors, nurses and the other staff deputed in the Hospital opined in the report that the wife of the petitioner died on account of negligence of Dr. P.C. Jain and Dr. Pushpa Gupta, who after repeated requests did not attend the patient. The operative part of the report...
Tag this Judgment!Budhi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ357; RLW2006(1)Raj289; 2006(1)WLC27
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Mr. Martin Luther King Jr., the great American Civil Libertarian once said. 'I have a dream to be free at last, to be free at last, to be free at last.' The promise of liberty is not just enshrined in the Constitution of India, out the dream of liberty is also engrained in every soul. Even a convicted prisoner, incarcerated within the strong walls of a jail, shackled to the chains, dreams of freedom at last. Such was the hope of the Petitioner after he completed 1/4 of his life sentence. He had prayed that he too should be released on regular parole of twenty days under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Parole Rules' for short). However, the hope was short lived. Vide Order dated 14-6-2004, the Advisory Committee, constituted under the Parole Rules, rejected the Petitioner's case for regular parole. Hence the petition before us.2. Mr. Suresh Sahni, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has challeng...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj253; 2006(1)WLC348
Harbans Lal, J.1. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioners Kedar and Roop Singh who have been declined bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli vide order dated 18.10.2005 in FIR No. 169/05 P.S. Masalpur for offence under Section 216-A read with Section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to in short the Act of 1986).2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offence under Section 216A IPC is bailable. Still the bail has been declined to the petitioners in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1980 whereas it has been held in Bhatta v. State of Rajasthan 2005 (1) RCC 277 and Ramdayal v. State of Rajasthan 2005(2) RCC 908 that where the alleged offence under the Indian Penal Code itself is bailable, the embargo on grant of bail provided under Section 5 of the Act of 1986 would not be applicable.3. Learned PP also could not controvert this.4. In order to appreciate a...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Lal Behra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj509
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.1.2004 dismissing the writ petition filed the appellant laying claim to count the services, rendered by him from 15.7.1956 to 17.1.1965 under the Municipal Board, Nagaur before he was transferred to the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar; as qualifying service for the purpose of determining his pension and his retiral benefits.3. The petitioner-appellant retired from the services of the State Government on 30.9.1988 and he became entitled to pension w.e.f. 1.10.1988.4. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, petitioner-appellant has been paid salary by computing his qualifying service with effect from the date he joined as LDC in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar.5. Prior to his transfer under the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar vide order dated 14.1.1965 (Annex.3), the petitioner was serving as LDC with the Mun...
Tag this Judgment!Malkit Singh Vs. the Special Court N.D.P.S., Sri Ganganagar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj81; RLW2006(1)Raj535; 2006(1)WLC752
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The present writ petition is against the order of the Trial Court dated 15.9.2005 by which the Trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondent under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and permitted the plaintiff to produce the copy of the family settlement dated 16.8.2003 as secondary evidence.2. According to the learned Counsel for the defendant- petitioner, the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent and allowed the documents to be taken on record as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court without deciding about the execution of the document, its existence and correctness of the copy produced by the respondent as secondary evidence, allowed the document to be admitted in evidence. Which is contrary to the provisions of Section 63 of the Evidence Act. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the order dated 15.9.2005, the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar @ Dulal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1270; 2006(1)WLC340
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. On July 10, 1999 P.K. Gupta (now deceased) came from Merrut to Jaipur and stayed in Hotel Chaudhary in room No. 208. In the morning of July 11, 1999, dead body of P.K. Gupta was found lying in pool of blood. The police investigation revealed that the accused appellants Shankar and Ganesh had committed murder of P.K. Gupta, thereafter they were indicted before the learned Special Judge SC ST (PA Gases) Jaipur, who vide Judgment dated November 13, 2001, convicted Shankar and Ganesh under Section 302 alternatively 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer one year imprisonment.2. The prosecution story is woven like this:On July 11, 1999 at 10.30 AM the informant Rajesh Chaudhary (Pw.1) (owner of Hotel Chaudhary) submitted a written report at Police Station Vidhayakpuri Jaipur with the averments that when around 8 AM he arrived at the hotel he found Man Singh a servant of the hotel and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »