Rajasthan Court April 2005 Judgments
Surjit Singh and ors. Vs. Dwarka Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ2409
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. In view of the with. We have heard the learned Counsel short question involved in this appeal, the for the parties on merits, preparation of paper book is dispensed with. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits.2. This intra-court appeal has been submitted by the claimants who filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, claiming compensation on various heads on account of death of Daljeet Kaur. It has been alleged by the claimants and held proved by the Tribunal that the deceased along with other members of the family was travelling in their Maruti van when a vehicular accident was caused by rash and negligent driving by one Dharm Narain of mini truck bearing registration No. RNY 8418. The said mini truck hit the van causing injuries to Daljeet Kaur, Gurmeet Kaur, Amarpal Singh and Vineet Singh. Daljeet Kaur died as a result of the said injuries.3. While dealing with the question of quantification of the amount...
Tag this Judgment!Hemraj and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC163
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The learned Single Judge, under the impugned order, dated 25.1.1994, decided three S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 270/1988,271/1988 and 154/ 1988 and felt dissatisfied and aggrieved of that order the claimant-appellants in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 270/1988 and 154/1988 have preferred these two appeals.2. The appeals before the learned Single Judge were filed against the common award, dated 29.1.1988 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in three Claim Case Nos. 251 /85,252/1985 and 253/1985. Since the order impugned in these appeals is common and the matters arise out of the same accident, the appeals are taken up for hearing together and being decided by this common order.3. The learned Tribunal, under its award dated 29.1.1988, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,28,640 as compensation in favour of the claimant-appellants in D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 71/1994 and a sum of Rs. 2,36,320 in favour of the claimant-appellants in D.B. Spec...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswant Singh Vs. the Secretary, Govt. of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1649; 2005(3)WLC338
V.K. Bali, J.1. Petitioner after remaining posted at different places was transferred to Jaipur in June, 1984. His wife Smt. Prem Lata, an Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, on her transfer from Delhi joined her husband, the petitioner herein in July, 1984. The petitioner hired a house in Jaipur on a monthly rent of Rs. 1550/-. Her wife was entitled for reimbursement of house rent allowance from the Bank and therefore, a formal lease deed was executed between the Bank and the owner of the premises taken on rent by the petitioner. This formal lease deed was executed only for the purpose that the benefit of house rent allowance could be given to the wife of the petitioner. The necessity to get a formal lease deed executed arose for the reason that the Bank at the relevant time did not have accommodation of its own. The petitioner claimed house rent allowance for the period he remained with his wife under the same roof in the rented house through the lease deed executed between the o...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Maheshwari Builders and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj334; 2005(2)ARBLR480(Raj); RLW2005(2)Raj1317; 2005(3)WLC399
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The facts in brief are that there is a work contract between the respondent No. 1 and petitioner for construction of MD Accommodation (Quarters) for which contract agreement C.E./BTZ- 12/90-91 was executed between the parties. Some dispute arose between the parties and ultimately, the respondent No. 1 had to move an application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') before this Court which was registered as Arbitration Application No. 28/2004. This Court vide order dated 27.5.2004 appointed Hon'ble Justice Shri D.N. Joshi (Retd.) as sole arbitrator. However, while appointing Arbitrator, it was specifically observed that the objections with regard to appointment of arbitrator or the validity of reference to the arbitrator or the maintainability of the arbitration proceedings may be raised before the arbitrator but since the conditions requisite for invoking the powers under Section 11 ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1313; 2005(3)WLC300
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioners by this writ petition, have challenged the Notification dated 24.9.1986 (Annex.4) and sought declaration that bamboos and ballis are not agricultural produce and its trade cannot be regulated under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') and the petitioners further prayed that the notices issued for demanding mandi fees on sale of the bamboos and ballis (Annex. 5, 7, 9, 10A, 12, 13 and 15) be declared illegal and quashed. The petitioners further prayed that the respondents may be restrained from effecting the market fees from the petitioner on the purchase and sale of bamboos and ballis. The Notification dated 24.9.1986 which was issued under the provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 1961 was challenged earlier in the year 1987 by filing four writ petitions which were dismissed by this Court by common order dated 25.7.1996. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, neither the relevant provisions ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2044; 2005(3)WLC441
Harbans Lal, J.1. Shri Chhotu Ram, who was Darban (Class IV in Group 'D') in the Geological Survey of India died on 12.6.1993. An application for appointment to his son on compassionate grounds was filed before the concerned authorities in the same year by Smt. Laxmi Devi, the wife of the deceased. Since the post was not available, he was not given the appointment. Against this inaction, the petitioner filed an Original Application being OA No. 245/03. The petitioner has studied upto 8th standard and belongs to OBC category.2. After filing of the OA, he was called for interview on 26.10.1994 vide order dated 19.10.1994. The petitioner was informed that appointment shall be given to him on availability of vacancy. It is submitted by the petitioner that a similarly situated person, respondent No. 3, was given appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner submitted representation to the respondents and also gave a notice for demand of justice.3. The Original Application of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Kishna and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2846; 2005(3)WLC684
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants herein along with other seven accused were put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 17.7.1999 in Sessions Case No. 13/1994 convicted accused appellants Kishna, Ram Khiladi and Mota under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default of payment of fine further three months rigorous imprisonment.2. In a nutshell the prosecution story is that on 29.8.1993 at 8.30 p.m., a 'parcha bayan'-Exhibit P1 of Babulal, injured, was recorded in the Govt. Hospital Todabhim, to the effect that at about 5.00 pm his cousin Chouthi was returning after grazing cattle and when he reached near the agricultural field of Kishna Meena on National Highway No. 11 accused Kishna, Ram Khiladi, Mota along with other accused persons, armed with deadly weapons came and started beating Chauthi. On hearing hue and cry, Prabhu, Narain, Badri, Prasadi,...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Val Chand JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Raj)268; [2006]287ITR365(Raj)
K.S. Rathore, J. 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner made the following prayers:(i) to declare the seizure of gold bullion on 9th Dec., 2004 (Annex. 2) to be null and void;(ii) to declare the search and seizure conducted in the premises of the petitioner on 9th Dec., 2004 (Annex. 3) as void and without there being any authority of law and without jurisdiction;(iii) to direct the respondent-authorities to hand over the goods which have been seized by them to the petitioner forthwith;(iv) to direct the respondent-authorities to handover the cash of Rs. 6.50 lakhs illegally seized by them to the petitioner forthwith (Annex. 3).2. Learned Counsel for the respective parties argued at length. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the gold belonging to the petitioner was seized on 9th Dec., 2004. As per Section 132 although the authorities are empowered to search and seize but as per the proviso to Section 132 the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, being ...
Tag this Judgment!Neetu Choudhary (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: [2006(107)FLR492]; RLW2008(2)Raj1404
Govind Mathur, J.1. Sanction was granted by Government of Rajasthan to fill in 568 posts of Nurse Grade II by making appointments on urgent temporary basis. The aforesaid sanction was granted after getting approval from the department of finance under an order dated 20.1.2000. The sanction of the Government was notified by the Director (Aids), Directorate of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur under an office order dated 21.1.2000.2. By an order dated 25.1.2000, passed by Joint Director, Medical and Health Services, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur, appointment was given to the petitioner as Nurse Grade II on urgent temporary basis against the posts notified by order dated 21.1.2000. The appointment of the petitioner was made for a period of six months at the consolidated salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. The term of appointment of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons was extended till further orders or till regular recruitment takes place, whichever is earl...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar Vs. Ranveer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1174
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition may be stated below:3. The petitioner had purchased a Jeep bearing No. RJ 18G 2081 on hire purchased basis from some finance company. The registration of the Jeep stands in his name. The respondent No. 1 who was earlier driver on the said jeep requested the petitioner on 17.3.2004 to hand over the said jeep to him for a day and that he will return the same on the next day. The petitioner believing on the words of respondent No. 1, gave him the said jeep for a day. When the petitioner asked him to return the jeep, the respondent No. 1 refused to return the same and accordingly the petitioner lodged a report against him, whereupon, the police registered a case for offence under Section 406 IPC.4. In the course of investigation, the police recovered the vehicle and seized the papers including driving licence of the petitioner from the possession of respondent No. 1.5. In the course ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »