Rajasthan Court July 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.
Meenu Chauhan (Smt.) Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2654; 2005(4)WLC462
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III after granting him 15 bonus marks for the sports certificate Annex. 6.2. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the respondents on 28.7.2003, inviting application for the post of Physical Training Instructor. The petitioner, being eligible for appointment, on the said post, applied for the same.3. It has further been averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that in the advertisement, a provision was made for awarding 15 bonus marks for participation in the National Level Tournament.4. Further case of the petitioner is that he participated in XXXI National Schools Games Winter Meet Part I and II organized at New Delhi, in January, 1986 by the School Games Federation of India.5. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is that th...
Data Ram and anr. Vs. Afsar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC101; RLW2005(4)Raj2588; 2005(4)WLC227
N.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) CPC against the order dated 4.2.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, in Civil Misc. Application No. 38/1996 whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that this appeal, arises out of application for compensation filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and no appeal in such matters lies under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) CPC against an order passed by Tribunal on an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. He submits that the appellants may file the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said order, but appeal is not maintainable. He has placed reliance on the case of Mangla Jat v. Raju, reported in 2001 (1) WLC (Raj.) 698, wherein this Court has held as under:6. 'Reliance is placed by the counsel for the respondents on a judgment of this Court in the c...
Navratan Devi (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Raghuveer Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC238; RLW2005(4)Raj2812; 2005(4)WLC363
N.K. Jain, J.1. These two appeals, one by claimants for enhancing of amount of compensation and another by non claimants for reducing the amount of compensation, have been filed against the judgment/award dated 28.10.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 850/1998.2. The claimant Smt. Navratan Devi and Others filed an application under Section 140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation in respect of death of late Sh. Giriraj Prasad Ladiwal, who died in an accident, arising out of the motor vehicle, took place on 29.07.1998. A total sum of Rs. 31,85,000/- was claimed as compensation under varies heads in the claims application by the claimants.3. The non applicants contested the claim application by filing a written reply, wherein it was stated that the income of deceased has been mentioned at a higher side in the claim application. The contributory negligence of the deceased was also pleaded.4. Learned trib...
Nand Ram and anr. Vs. Babu @ Nawal Kishore and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC143; RLW2005(4)Raj2866; 2005(4)WLC403
N.K. Jain, J.1. The claimants/appellant, who are parents of deceased Laxman, have filed this Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment/award dated 28.6.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in claim petition No. 687/91 by the learned Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 74,000/- in favour of the claimants/appellants. The claim petition was contested by all the non-applicants. The Tribunal framed 5 issues. The claimants examined AW 1 to AW 4 and produced the documentary evidence. The Insurance Company filed Insurance Policy Ex. A-1.2. The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment recorded a finding that this accident took place because of negligence on the part of the driver non-applicant. So far as Issue No. 3 relating to the quantum of the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considered the statement of AW 4 Udai Lal and AW 1 Nand Ram and on that basis a finding was...
Arun Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj900
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dated 16.1.1999 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e., the Government of Rajasthan imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by a memorandum dated 15.4.1995 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.2. By the memorandum dated 15.4.1995, the petitioner was directed to submit an explanation for the allegations of misconduct levelled against him. The allegations pertain to the year 1982-83 when the petitioner was holding the post of Sub- Divisional Soil Conservator Officer, In all, four allegations were levelled against him. The allegation No. 1 is that the petitioner while holding the office above changed the name of office from Sub-Divisional Soil Conservator Officer, DPAP, Bikaner to the office of Assistant Soil Conservator Engineer, DPAP, Bikaner. The allegation ...
Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj878; 2006(2)WLC54
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner challenges the continued operation of Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 promulgated by His Highness the Raj Pramukh on 14th Dec., 1949 inter alia on the ground that ordinance having not been subsequently enacted as a legislative Act before expiry of 6 months period, it automatically lapsed in terms of Article 123/213 of the Constitution of India and Section 88 of the Government of India Act, 1935.2. This contention is not well founded as the contention is based on an assumption that Raj Pramukh, before the commencement of Constitution was exercising legislative power in terms of Section 88 of the Government of India Act 1935 only during the absence of session of Legislative Assembly and it was required to be placed before House when legislative assembly was convened.3. The Raj Pramukh of United States of Rajasthan in promulgating Ordinance was not exercising power under Section 88 of Government of India Act, 1935, but was exercising power as pa...
Kamlesh Khatri and ors. Vs. Chattar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: II(2007)ACC186
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Mr. Anil Bachhawat who generally appears for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, is directed to take notice, though the Insurance Company was earlier served.2. Heard learned Counsel on merits.This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 16.3.1991 deciding Claim Case No. 57 of 1988 for enhancement of compensation.3. The claimant Kamlesh Khatri is the widow of Suresh Kumar who is said to have died in an accident which took place on 17.12.1987 at about 11.15 in broad daylight. The truck No. RJC 1060 which was being driven by Chattar Singh driver, respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased Suresh Kumar from back who died on the spot. At the time of accident, Suresh Kumar was working as Corporal in Indian Air Force and was 25 years of age having monthly salary of Rs. 2,264. He left behind his son Jayant and widow Kamlesh and old parents Hari Ram and Badami Devi.4. The learned Tribunal ha...
Tata Finance Ltd. Vs. Sumit Khamsera and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj43; RLW2005(4)Raj2676; 2005(4)WLC442
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The facts in brief are that in a matter of hire purchase contract for vehicle No. RJ-27P-3384 a dispute arose between the petitioner and non-petitioner, upon which the non-petitioner filed a suit for injunction in a Civil Court, i.e., before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div,) Udaipur City (North), Udaipur on 6th Nov., 2000. The defendant-petitioner immediately in response to the summon/notice of the suit for injuction and injunction application appeared before the trial Court and submitted an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1996') and submitted that in view of the clause contained in the agreement dated 30th Sept., 1998 between the plaintiff and the defendant, the matter may be referred for arbitration. No reply was filed by the plaintiff to the application of the petitioner-defendant before the trial Court and the trial Court after hearing the ar...
Dungar Das Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2672; 2005(4)WLC255
V.K. Bali, J.1. Dungar Das a harijan by caste has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order Annexure-9 dated 17.2.1992 passed by Municipal Council, Banner vide which, the petitioner has been alloted a plot at Mahaveer Nagar on current market price.2. The bare minimum fact, on which the relief aforesaid is sought to rest reveal that a plot bearing No. AH-4 was allotted to the petitioner on concessional rate by Municipal Board, Barmer in the month of January, 1976. The petitioner deposited amount of Rs. 140/- on 24.01.1976 evidenced through receipt Annexure-1. The possession of this plot however could not be given to the petitioner on the ground that there was some dispute going on in the court, wherein injunction was also granted regarding the said plot. After a lapse of as many as six years vide communication dated 17.7.1982, petitioner was called upon to state as to whether he was inter...
Rukma Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Rampratap and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC92; RLW2005(4)Raj2587; 2005(4)WLC231
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment/award dated 25.3.96 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 116/93 whereby the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 63,000/- in favour of claimants in respect of death of late Shri Ramchandra who died in an accident which took place on 8.2.93.2. The only contention urged on behalf of appellants is that income of deceased was wrongly determined as Rs. 1200/- per month by the Tribunal, whereas it should have been determined as Rs. 3000/- per month on the basis of documentary evidence Ex.15 Income Certificate of the deceased. It is urged that claimants examined AW-1 Mst. Rukma wife of the deceased, who stated on oath that her husband was earning Rs. 100/- per day. He has also referred Ex.15, a certificate issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Govindgarh, certifyi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »