Rajasthan Court April 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.
Laxman Taneja Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1271
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by Shri Laxman Taneja-petitioner praying therein that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the amendment dated 21.11.2002 made in the Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Medical Concession Scheme'), whereby a pensioner and members of his family have been declared entitled for grant of financial assistance in respect of specialized treatments taken in a Government hospital within the State of Rajasthan only, may be declared illegal, so far as it restricts grant of financial assistance in respect of specialized treatments taken in the Government hospital within the State of Rajasthan. It has further been prayed that by an appropriate writ, order of direction, the respondents may be directed to provide financial assistance to a pensioner and the members of his family in respect of specialized treatments taken in a Government hospital within the State of Rajasthan or from any o...
Ganpat Tiwari and ors. Vs. Suraj Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC573; RLW2005(2)Raj1471; 2005(3)WLC600
J.R. Goyal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.3.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which the claim petition has been dismissed treating it to be time barred.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 6.6.1992 at about 9 am opposite to M/s. Shakeel Meat House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur deceased Jagdish Tiwari became victim of an accident because of rash and negligent driving of tempo No. RNQ 9545 driven by Suraj Singh-respondent No. 1. The deceased Jagdish Tiwari died due to fatal injuries sustained in the accident. After the said accident the driver of the tempo involved in the accident ran away along with his tempo from the spot. Case was registered under Sections 279 & 304A 1PC. During the investigation, the claimants preferred the claim under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act, 1988) under the special provisions as to get compensation in case of hit and run m...
Prahlad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj26; 2005(2)WLC579
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant and three others faced trial in Sessions Case No. 5, 1999 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bayana District Bharatpur who vide judgment dated August 28, 2000 acquitted three other co-accused but convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution story is woven like this:On November 4, 1998 around 12.30 PM Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Samogar went to Police Station Bayana and informed Diwan Singh ASI (PW. 12) that Natthi (since deceased) was lying in an injured condition. Diwan Singh then rushed to the Hospital Bayana and found Natthi admitted in Medical Ward. Diwan Singh noted down Parcha Bayan of Natthi (Ex.P.14) in the presence of Dr. Ravi Gupta. In the Parcha Bayan Natthi stated that on November 3, 1998 at about 6 PM while he was sitting out side of his house on a Chabutra suddenly Prahlad and hi...
S.C. Mittal and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC341; 2006ACJ875; 2005(3)WLC566
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act, 1988') is directed by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 16.1.1998, of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bayana, District Bharatpur, in Claim Case No. 65 of 1994.2. Under the impugned award, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000 as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants for the death of their son Gouri. The deceased was aged 4 years.3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that even where the deceased, minor son of the claimants- appellants, was not the earning member, on his death his notional income is to be taken at Rs. 15,000 per annum and 15 is appropriate multiplier, which ought to have been adopted by the learned Tribunal. But it has not been done and the learned Tribunal has granted a lump sum compensation of Rs. 90,000 in favour of the claimants-appellants, which is not reasonable and justified. In support of his contentio...
S.C. Mittal and ors. Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC341
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act, 1988') is directed by the claimant appellants against the award, dated 16.1.1998, of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bayana, District Bharatpur, in Claim Case No. 65/1994.2. Under the impugned award, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant appellants for the death of their son Gouri. The deceased was aged 4 years.3. The learned Counsel for the claimant appellants submitted that even where the deceased, minor son of the claimant appellants, was not the earning member, on his death his notional income is to be taken at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and 15 is appropriate multiplier, which ought to have been adopted by the learned Tribunal. But it has not been done and the learned Tribunal has granted a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 90,000/- in favour of the claimant appellants, which is not reasonable and justified. In support...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. First Point Finance Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Raj)626; [2006]286ITR477(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is against the order dated May 20, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The respondent-assessee is a company and the issue relates to the assessment year 1997-98. The assessee-company has filed return of income declaring Rs. 3,700 as income for the relevant assessment year. The issue now involved before us and which was before the Tribunal was relating to additions of Rs. 5,80,000 made by the assessing authority on account of unexplained share capital/share application money which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Rs. 70,000 were added by the Assessing Officer as unexplained share capital shown to be invested by seven investors, namely, Shri Kailash Chandra Chhabra, Smt. Seema Chhabra, Sandeep Kothari, Smt. Seema Kothari, Sanjay Shah, Smt. Sonali Sha...
Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1177
Harbans Lal, J.1. This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioner Mohan Lal, whose first bail application was rejected vide Order dated 18.8.2004 with the liberty to file fresh bail application after the investigation was completed.2. The petitioner is alleged to have been found in possession of contraband opium weighing 1 Kgs, and 680 Gms., which is more than the prescribed small quantity but less than the prescribed commercial quantity.3. Relying upon the Order passed by a co-Ordinate bench in 'Shaffi Mohd. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, his learned counsel has contended that this bench should normally respect the view taken by a co-ordinate bench of this court, otherwise, there would be uncertainty and bench hunting which would not send correct message to the society at large and in view of the Order/guidelines laid down in the aforesaid case by the co- ordinate bench, this bench should also grant bail to the petitioner in the instant c...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Rahim
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1375; 2005(3)WLC618
Satya Prakash Pathak, J. 1. This is a State appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i), CrPC against the judgment and order dated 18.11.1987 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barmer in Criminal Case No. 89/1987 (State v. Rahim), whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NDPS Act').2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14.11.1986 PW. 11 Chandan Singh, SHO, Police Station Gadra Road, Barmer received as secret information while he was on patrolling duty that accused was having opium in his house. The search of the house was made and opium was recovered from a bag in presence of motbir witness. Out of recovered opium, which was 3 Kgs., a sample of 30 gms. was taken out. The sample was seized and sealed and remaining 2970 gms. opium was also seized and sealed separately. The accused was arrested. The sample was sent for chemi...
Manager Mittal Steel Manufacturing Company Vs. Chotha Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1926; 2005(3)WLC430
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The Manager-M/s. Mittal steel Manufacturing Company has filed the instant petition with a prayer that the award dated 17.12.2003 (Annexure 6), passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur, in Labour Case No. 254/2001, may be quashed and set aside.2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that Chotha Ram-Respondent No. 1 made an application before the Joint Labour Commissioner, Jodhpur, on 16.3.1999, stating therein that on 11.1.1998, he was appointed as Mistry by M/s. Mittal Steel Manufacturing Company of the petitioner and he worked there upto 10.3.1999.3. In response to the Notice, the petitioner-company filed a reply on 14.7.1999, stating therein that Respondent No. 1-workman was neither appointed by the petitioner-company as Mistry, nor he worked with the employer. In support of the reply to the notice, the petitioner-company submitted the Attendance Register for the period January, 1998 to March, 1998 before the Conciliation Officer.4. The Conciliation O...
Mohd. Aslam Vs. Shambhoo Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1400
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the Trial Court dated 29th November, 2003 by which the Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's two applications, one for taking on record the expert opinion, which petitioner obtained himself from hand writing expert Ramesh Thakkar and prayed that in case there is any objection of the plaintiff about the report of said Ramesh Thakkar as it was obtained not with the prior leave of the Court then the Court may permit the hand writing expert to take photographs of the relevant documents so that fresh report may be brought on record by the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner's second application was also with respect to the other documents but for the same purpose of obtaining expert report, that too, was dismissed by the Trial Court.3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, the plaintiff-respondent was allowed to obtain the hand writing expert report for the do...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »