Rajasthan Court September 2005 Judgments
Ali Khan Vs. Vijay Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC245; RLW2006(3)Raj2170; 2006(1)WLC215
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal Under Section 373 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by the claimant Ali Khan against the award dated 02.01.1996 passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 41/1993 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer whereby the claim application has been rejected.2. Brief facts leading to and relevant for this appeal are that the claimant-appellant Ali Khan submitted a claim application on 10.5.1993 seeking compensation of Rs. 4,78,900/- Under Section 166 of the Act and Rs. 25,000/- towards no fault liability Under Section 140 of the Act arraying Chandra Singh, Chhug Singh and Lun Singh as non-applicants No. 1 to 3. The claimant averred that on 10.11.1992 his father Hazi Khan was sitting near a cabin at Bhadkha Bus stand on Barmer-Jaisalmer Road at about 12:00 noon when the non-applicant No. 3 Lun Singh brought driving rashly and negligently a Jonga bearing registration No.RNJ 8841 and suddenly the left...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Lal and anr. Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)WLC795
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The two appellants faced trial in Sessions Case No. 259/2001 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 2 Jhalawar for short 'trial judge' who vide Judgment dated April 26, 2002 convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.2. As per prosecution story on May 13, 1999, Sultan Khan, SHO Police Station Raipur District Jhalawar PW. 19 reached to the Hospital Raipur and recorded parcha bayan of Smt. Badam Bai PW. 17 whose husband Purilal and son Shyam were admitted to the hospital in an unconscious state. In the Parcha Baryan Ex.P. 8 Badam Bai stated that Hazari illegality cut 'Khejri tree' from their land and when her husband protected Hazari hurled abuses at him. Around 12.30 PM on the said day when her husband had gone to the market Hazari and Motilal appellants belaboured her husband and inf...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Lal Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj3005; 2006(2)SLJ282(Raj); 2006(1)WLC102
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition prayed for expunging the remarks in his APAR for the year 2000-2001 and for quashing the order rejecting the representation against the said APAR.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, in PWD Division Sikar vide order dated January 27, 2001. The petitioner joined the said post on January 30, 2001. Prior to joining of the petitioner proposals were prepared for connecting villages to roads under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna as per the Notification of the Secretary PWD, Jaipur dated April 20, 2000. In the month of December package formation was finalised by the earlier Executive Engineer. The proposals were approved by the Ministry of Rural Development Government of India vide letter dated December 23, 2000. The estimates prepared were technically approved by the competent authority i.e. Additional Chief Engineer on January 22, 2001. After issue of work order and commencin...
Tag this Judgment!Shyoji Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4763; RLW2006(1)Raj155; 2005(4)WLC580
F.C. Bansal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-6-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk whereby accused-appellant Shyojirarn has been convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(f), IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for one month.2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 7-11-98 at 4.30 p.m., PW-1 Sitaram S/o Arjun, by caste-Balai, R/o Hisampur submitted a written report Ex. P1 to SHO, P.S. Devli Wherein it was, inter alia, stated that yesterday around 2.30 p.m. his daughter Rajee, aged 10 years had gone to his field to watch the mustard crop. At 6.00 p.m. she returned to home. She was crying and she told him that Shyoji Uncle (accused-appellant) came in the field and asked her to accompany him to eat 'Ber' (plum) and thereafter took her to a nearby place where 'Babool' trees were standing and committed rape on her. It...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Gopal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ362
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. As many as 5 accused were indicated before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, Kota in Sessions Case No. 332/98. Since co-accused Prabhu Lal died during trial the proceedings against him stood dropped. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated March 27, 1999 convicted and sentenced the remaining four accused as under:-- Ram Gopal Under Section 148, IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment S/o Ramnarain for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 302, IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two years. Under Section 147, IPC No sentence. Ram Kishan, Under Section 148, IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment Ram Narayan and for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, Ram Gopal S/o Bheru in default to further suffer simple Lal imprisonment for three months. Under Section 302/149, To suffer imprisonment for life and...
Tag this Judgment!Davendra Kumar Kedawat Vs. Apple Ceremics Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas816(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the company petition.2. The following prayer has been made in this petition :It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application under Section 633 of the Companies Act may kindly be allowed and the petitioner may be released from the liability of respondent No. 1 company wholly and part of its amount, which he has invested as 50100 shares of Rs. 10 each the aforesaid company may kindly be returned back to the petitioners.Any other order which this hon'ble court may deem think fit be passed in favour of the petitioner.3. The petitioner was undisputedly the director of the respondent-company. He also stood guarantor for the loan taken by it from respondent No. 2 bank. The loan was not repaid by the company. The bank filed the case in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, against the company, which was decreed on February 3, 2004. To escape his liability as a guarantor, the petitioner has fil...
Tag this Judgment!Cpl Debasish Sen Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj486
R.P. Vyas, J. 1. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed that by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to initiate the action for discharge of the petitioner from the service, being habitual offender.2. Petitioner - Debasish Sen was enrolled in the Indian Air Force (IAF) on 16.2.1993 and since the year, 2003, he is working in 33 Signal Unit, Air Force Unit, Jodhpur. It is averred in the instant petitioner that from August, 2002, the petitioner has serious problems from his home front and he was required to be proceed on leave very often from his unit to his home. The petitioner over-stayed, beyond the period of leave, at his home. Then, on reporting back on duty, he was charge-sheeted and punished with a few red ink entries in his service record. By 2.5.2003, the petitioner had already incurred 3 red ink entries. A warning vide letter dated 5.5.2003 (Annex. 1) was issued to the petitioner by the Station Commander, 33 Signal Unit of Ai...
Tag this Judgment!Hattu @ Bablu Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4739; RLW2005(4)Raj2980; 2005(4)WLC724
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated May 11, 2005 of the District Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur detaining the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 which was enacted to tackle the law and order situation in the country in a most determined and effective way.2. Coming to the scheme of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 1980 Act), we notice that the State Government has to send its report in regard to detention order to the Central Government, Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of 1980 Act reads as under:--'When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section, the State Government, shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order.'3. A detention order may be. revoked or modified at any time under Section 14 of the...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinod Choudhary and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ390
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The appeal comes up for admission. In view of the small controversy, at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard at this stage itself.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents. On the strength of this, it is contended that the compensation assessed by learned Tribunal is excessive.4. In this regard two submissions have been made. First being, that learned Tribunal was in error in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000 per month, inasmuch as, there is no reliable evidence in this regard on record and that deceased was said to be working as a Manager in the video parlour, while operating video parlour has already been declared illegal in Rajasthan and, therefore, it cannot be believed that he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Baradiya Colony Vikas Samiti Vs. Ramchandra Kasliwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj143; 2005(4)WLC776
V.K. Bali, J.1. Mr. Ram Chandra Kasliwal, a prominent lawyer, filed a petition in the nature of public interest litigation praying that directions be given to the State of Rajasthan to remove/demolish encroachments made in the famous Ram Niwas Garden by R.S.E.B. P.H.E.D. N.C.C. etc. and the vehicular traffic which had turned the park into a thorough-fare should be stopped and prohibited. He also prayed that the vehicles which come to Ravindra Manch should not enter through the main entrance gate of Ram Niwas Garden and it should be provided a separate approach. He also prayed that identity of the garden must be maintained and activities like Circus, public meetings, Kavi Sarnmelan etc. should be banned therein. V.S. Dave J. as he then was, while deciding the writ petition aforesaid gave several directions which are being reproduced below: 1. Ramniwas garden shall be kept as a park within the meaning of the Act of 1956 and no to pass through it with the exception that such narrow lines ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »