Rajasthan Court September 2005 Judgments
Chand Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC462; 2007ACJ503; RLW2005(4)Raj2880; 2006(1)WLC50
V.K. Bali, J.1. The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal on a limited question. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its orders dated 14.3.1995 determined compensation payable to the appellants to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 21.7.1992 till its realisation. The Tribunal further held that interest at the rate of 15% will be payable if the amount of compensation was not paid within two months. Aggrieved of the order aforesaid, respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 20.8.2004. While, however, dismissing the appeal, claimant-appellants were held not entitled to interest from 26.8.1996 when while admitting appeal of the respondent Insurance Co. learned Single Judge had stayed operation of the Award. Stay by the learned Single Judge obviously continued upto the date when the learned Single Judge disposed of the matter. For the period from 26.8.1996 upt...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2863; 2006(1)WLC40
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. A police constable riding as a pillion rider lost his right leg in an accident between a scooter and jeep. He had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, (for short 'the Tribunal'). However vide judgment dated 26.5.95, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, challenging the said order, he had filed a writ petition. Vide judgment dated 6.10.98, the Hon'ble High Court partly allowed the writ petition. As both the petitioners and the Insurance Company were equally aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.10.98, therefore, cross appeals have been filed by both the parties before us. Since cross appeal arise out of the same impugned judgment, therefore both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment.2. On 22.4.91, while Bashir was driving a scooter, the petitioner, Mahendra Singh, was riding as the pillion rider. Allegedly Bashir was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner. Around 7.30 PM, the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4732; RLW2005(4)Raj3052; 2006(1)WLC31
R.S. Chauhan, JJ.1. Repenting his sins, serving his life imprisonment term, the petitioner, Pappu Khan, sought few gasps of fresh air by pleading for regular parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth referred to as the 'Parole Rules'). Involved in a murder case on 25th March, 1999, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 19th July, 2002 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Kishangarh Bas.2. According to the petitioner so far he has served six years and four months imprisonment. Since, the petitioner was eligible for the regular parole of twenty days under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules, he applied for the same. However, vide order dated 7th July, 2005 the District Parole Committee was pleased to reject his parole application. Consequently, the writ petitioner before us.3. Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj9; 2006(1)WLC94
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Out of eight accused persons, who were put to trial in Sessions Case No. 22/1997, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur convicted two and acquitted six vide Judgment dated March 23, 2001. The two convicted accused Bharat Singh and Jagdish Singh were sentenced as under :Jagdish Singh:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 323/34 IPC:To suffer six months simple imprisonment.Bharat Singh:Under Section 302/34 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.Under Section 323 IPC:To suffer six months simple imprisonment.Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Findings of conviction and acquittal have been assailed in appeal No. 198/2001 and revision petition No. 228/2001, respectively.2. The prosecution story as unfolded during trial is like this-On M...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ghosh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006FAJ229
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City dated 31.3.1999 in Case No. 469/96 rejecting the application of the petitioner for discharging him in view of the warranty by the manufacturer printed on, the packing of the commodity under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 inter alia on the ground that he was merely a purchaser from the manufacturer and the commodity was purchased from him by the food Inspector, in sealed container which carried with it a warranty from the manufacturer/vendor in the prescribed form which protects him under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Such printed warranty discharged him from burden of proving the existence of such warranty. Therefore, he should be discharged.2. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pawan Kumar Chopra and Anr. 1908 (2) FAC...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Rampal Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1264; 2006(1)WLC335
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. It is defendant's special appeal filed against judgment & decree dt. 28.5.1993 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer whereby dismissal of plaintiff dt. 11.5.76 has been set aside with the direction for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and affirmed by learned Single Judge while dismissing appeal vide judgment dt. 28.5.96.2. Brief facts relevant to examine controversy are that plaintiff initially joined service on probation as Development Officer on 5.4.64 and was confirmed from 1.4.66. His service conditions are regulated by Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 ('Staff Regulations') framed in exercise of powers vested under Clauses (b) & (bb) of Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LIC').3. Charge sheet dt. 16.4.74 imputing six charges was served upon plaintiff. Pending inquiry, he was placed under suspension vide order dt. 9.8.74. A supplementary charge sheet was also served on 21...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ60
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. A police constable riding as a pillion rider lost his right leg in an accident between a scooter and jeep. He had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City (for short 'the Tribunal'). However, vide judgment dated 26.5.1995, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, challenging the said order, he had filed a writ petition. Vide judgment dated 6.10.98, the Hon'ble High Court partly allowed the writ petition. As both the petitioners and insurance company were equally aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.10.1998, therefore, cross-appeals have been filed by both the parties before us. Since cross-appeal arises out of the same impugned judgment, therefore, both appeals are being decided by this common judgment.2. On 22.4.1991, while Bashir was driving a scooter, petitioner, Mahendra Singh, was riding as the pillion rider. Allegedly Bashir was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner. Around 7.30 p.m., the said sco...
Tag this Judgment!Foranti and ors. Vs. Abdul Gani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC119
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,56,000 awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur 'Tribunal') vide award date 27.11.2000 in MACT Case No. 28/2000.2. Claimants are widow and parents of Ramraj (deceased) aged 30 years, who was going on motor bike from Bajaria to his village Mainpura and when he reached near Bais Godam on Sawai Madhopur Dausa Road, a tata sumo' jeep No. RJ-14/ 2C/9102 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, met with an accident -as a result of which he died on 17.12.1999. As per claim petition, Ramraj was engaged in profession of agriculture and earning Rs. 5,000 (out of which Rs. 3,00 from agriculture profession and Rs. 2,000 from selling milk) but claimants did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their averments in respect of income of the deceased. However, this fact remained undisputed that he was an agriculturist and having some source of income from agriculture and...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2955; 2005(4)WLC733
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has refused to restore the writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution on the ground that the learned counsel for the appellants did not appears, even when the matter was called in second round. The learned Single Judge was not satisfied with the reason given by the learned counsel that when the case was called he was busy in another Court i.e. Court No. 8.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that when the matter was called in the first round, he was in fact arguing a matter before another Court. When the 'matter was called in the second round he was slightly late, till then the case was dismissed. He made a mention within a minute but the same was not accepted.3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the special appeal deserves to be allowed. The learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution on non-appearance of the counsel when the...
Tag this Judgment!Rais and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2983
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated June 29, 2001 rendered in Sessions Case No. 15/1999 by learned Judge, Special Court (Fake Currency Notes Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the two appellants (herein after to be referred as 'Accused') were convicted and sentenced as under:--Rais:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.Habib:Under Section 302/34 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.2. The prosecution story is woven like this:--On April 22, 1999 around 1.15 PM the informant Parvej (Pw.20) submitted a written report (Ex.P-9) at the police station Ramganj Jaipur City to the effect that at about 11.30 AM on the said day Ahmad (since deceased) and Tabrej came to his residence to meet him. After about 5 minutes when they were going towards Subhash Chowk Rais and Habib (accused) belabour...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »