Rajasthan Court November 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.
Madan Lal Vs. Gopi Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC735
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2.The injured-appellant-Madan Lal has filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment/award dated 14.12.1993 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 1064/89.3. The Counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the injured sustained 50% permanent disability whereas the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25,000 as compensation in respect of 50% permanent disability. He further submits that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,451 per month and his age was only 55 years at the time of accident, therefore, proper multiplier which ought to have been adopted in this case by the learned Tribunal was 11 looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case. His submission is that if multiplier of 11 is adopted then the amount of compensation for 50% disability comes to Rs. 1,61,766, therefore, his su...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harak Chand Sethi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-2005
Reported in: I(2007)ACC657
ORDERAjay Rastogi, J.1. Instant appeal has been filed by Insurance Company questioning quantum of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur ('Tribunal') in claim MACT Case No. 117/98, vide award dated 26.4.2002.2. Deceased Dharmendra Kumar aged 30 years working as Supervisor in some private firm in Surat had died in an accident which took place on 18.5.1997, while going in marriage party from Chitawa to Katthoti in offending bus No. RJ-26-P0210, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Claimants are parents and younger brother of deceased whose monthly salary was pleaded of Rs. 3,500. The Tribunal, after taking note of material on record awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,81,500 with interest @9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its actual payment vide impugned Award.3. Only contention advanced by Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Counsel for Insurance Company is that when the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier looking to...
Rewari and ors. Vs. Nathulal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-2005
Reported in: 4(2006)ACC58
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur ('Tribunal') vide Award dated 30.8.2001 in MACT Case No. 1429/95.2. Claimants are wife, three minor children, brother and mother of deceased Rambabu, aged 30 years, who was a labourer. As per claim petition, on 2.10.1995 while he was travelling in Jeep No. RJ-14-1C-3615, accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck No. DL-1G-5174 by its driver, as the offending truck collided with the jeep, thereby deceased died.3. The Tribunal after taking note of material on record, assessed monthly income of deceased as Rs. 1,500 and after deduction of Rs. 300 towards personal expenses, determined monthly dependency of the family as Rs. 1,200 and applying multiplier of 14 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,17,000 (including Rs. 15,000 towards loss of consortium to wife and for love and affection to claimants and Rs. 400 towards funeral expenses) wit...
Suresh Chand Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj270; 2006(1)WLC176
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In the writ petition filed, the appellant claimed full pension and gratuity for the period he remained in service of the Government alongwith interest. Learned Single Judge vide order dated August 27, 2001 dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.2. Contextual facts depict that the appellant was appointed as Mechanical supervisor on August 6, 1965. While the appellant was working on the post of Junior Chargeman he was sent on deputation to the Rajasthan State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. (in short Corporation) vide Notification dated November 13, 1969. The appellant was permanently absorbed in the Corporation and the services of the appellant were to be regulated as per the terms of the Finance Department's Notification dated July 23, 1969. The Assistant Secretary to the Government Agriculture Group II vide communication dated November 10, 1982 addressed to the Secretary of the Corporation directed that since the appellant alongwith 34 other employees ...
Ratni (Smt.) Vs. Nazeer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj345; 2006(1)WLC178
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 16th May, 1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ton in MAC No. 32/92 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 1,10,250/- has been awarded under different heads in respect of injuries sustained injured Chhagan Lal husband of the present appellant.3. Initially the claim application was filed by injured chhagan lal before the Tribunal in respect of injuries sustained by him in an accident arising out of motor vehicle look place on 7.11.91. However, during the pendency of the claim application, the injured died on 26.5.95 i.e. after three and half years from the date of accident and the present appellant being his wife was substituted in his place before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence and submissions of both the parties came to the conclusion that appellant is entitled to receive compensation for loss of estate for three ...
Zakir HussaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Raj)40
1. The IT Appeal No. 84 of 2002 filed by Zakir Hussain assessee, relates to asst. yr. 1993-94 and arises out of the common order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in appeals filed by the present appellant Zakir Hussain as well as appeal filed in respect of same assessment year by Smt. Huma Hussain, wife of the present appellant Zakir Hussain.2. The questions framed at the time of admitting the appeal No. 84 of 2002 relating to asst. yr. 1993-94 were as under:(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that permission to raise additional grounds in appeal can be granted only if such additional grounds are also taken within the period of limitation for filing the appeal, particularly when the question sought to be raised was purely a question of law?(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the additional grounds raised by the assessee which was pure question of law raised on the basis of Hon'ble Supre...
Megha Ram Vs. Panchayat Samiti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR521]; (2006)IILLJ607Raj; 2006WLC(Raj)UC211
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated November 24, 1999 of learned Addl. District Judge, Churu rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of petitioner Megha Ram.2. The matter pertains to Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Section 22 of which reads as under:Bar of suits: - No Court shall entertain any suit for the recovery of wages or of any deduction from wages in so far as the sum so(a) forms the subject of an application under Section 15 which has been presented by the plaintiff and which is pending before the authority appointed under that Section or of an appeal under Section 17; or(b) has formed the subject of a direction under Section 15 in favour of the plaintiff; or(c) has been adjudged, in any proceeding under Section 15, not to be owed to the plaintiff; or(d) could have been recovered by an application under Section 15.3. In view of the said bar of suits for recovery of wages under the said law, obviously the suit for declaration of order d...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kesri Chand Manak Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj263
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondent.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs. 6305.62/- against the appellant-defendant. According to plaintiff, the plaintiff booked certain goods for sending by railway transport from Varanasi to Bikaner. The goods were received by the appellant and a due receipt was issued by the appellant-railway to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff did not find the goods at Bikaner, he immediately informed the Commercial Superintendent of the Northern Railway, Bikaner on 16-2-1972 and submitted his claim under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act. The plaintiff also submitted the railway receipt to the appellant-defendant. Despite lodging claim, the amount was not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the said amount after serving notice. According to plaintiff since the goods, whic...
Mohanlal Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj208
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The appellant's suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 10th July, 1986. However, the appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff party vide judgment and decree dated 20-1-89. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent Injunction as well as for mandatory injunction against the defendants alleging that the property in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff from one Dalchand by sale deed dated 2nd Dec., 1971. Ordinarily, the property was belonging to one Ranjeet Singh who had Bopi Patta in his favour for the land in question. He sold the land to Dalchand on Poh Sud Samvat Year 2012 and Dalchand sold the property to the plaintiff on 2nd Dec., 1971. According to plaintiff the defendants encroached upon the part of the plaintiff's land measuring 15' x 4' in the West to East side after breaking the wall and also encroached upon the another land measur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›