Rajasthan Court September 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.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vaidya Mohan Lal and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC473; RLW2006(1)Raj265
V.K. Bali, J.1. A class IXth student died in an accident way back in the year 1979. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,800/- (Rs. Seventy two thousand eight hundred only) was held payable to the claimant-respondents by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar. The claimant-respondents succeeded in their endeavour for enhancement of compensation by the order of learned Single Judge, dated 1.8.2005 whereby the amount of compensation was enhanced from Rs. 72,800/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Insurance Company had filed no appeal against the order of Tribunal. It is while relying upon the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shobha Ram and Ors. v. Krishna V. Kant and Ors. WLC 2004 (UC) 616 that the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One lac fifty thousand only).2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.8.2005. Learned counsel appearing for the appel...
B.N. Bhootra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj541
Govind Mathur, J.1. A communication dated 25.10.2000 from Member Secretary and Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare, Rajasthan, whereby the petitioner is held liable for recovery of an amount of Rs. 85,0007- taken by him as a claim of heart treatment at Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur, is in question in present writ petition.2. The facts in brief required to be noticed for adjudication of instant petition for writ are that the petitioner while holding the office of Superintending Engineer (Monitoring), Public Health and Engineering Department, Jaipur suffered with a cardiac ailment and competent medical board found him suffering with CAD which required angioplasty and to have a stand. On being claimed medical expenses in a tune of Rs. 95,0007- for undergoing angioplasty, the Government of Rajasthan under a communication dated 29.5.1998 through a demand draft/bankers cheque No. 035736 dated 29.5.1998 issued by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Cbllectorate Branch/PWD Extension ...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vidya Mohan Lal and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC279; 2006(1)WLC190
V.K. Bali, J.1. A Class IXth student died in an accident way back in the year 1979. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,800 (Rs. seventy-two thousand eight a hundred only) was held payable to the claimant-respondetns by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar. The claimant-respondents succeeded in their endeavour for enhancement of compensation by the order of learned Single Judge, dated 1.8.2005 whereby the amount of compensation was enhanced from Rs. 72,800 to Rs. 1,50,000. The Insurance Company had filed no appeal against the order of Tribunal. It is while relying upon the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shobha Ram and Ors. v. Krishna V. Kant and Ors. 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 616, that the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000 (Rs. one lac fifty thousand only).2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.8.2005. Learned Counsel appearing for the appel...
Chatur Singh Vs. Mukesh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2878; 2005(4)WLC659
N.K. Jain, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner, learned Counsel for the accused- respondents and the public prosecutor.2. The complainant-petitioner has filed this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of order dated 16.2.05 passed by this Court granting bail to the accused non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in SB Cr. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 727/05 and 801/05.3. The learned Counsel for the complainant petitioner submitted that soon after release on bail, the accused non-petitioners committed an offence on 18.2.05 itself, for which the petitioner lodged an FIR No. 38/05 dated 19.2.05 at Police Station, Nadbai, District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 451 IPC, therefore, his submission is that the accused non- petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 misused the liberty granted to them. Hence the order granting bail vide order dated 16.2.05 be cancelled and the accused non-petitione...
Lal Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2968; 2005(4)WLC791
R.P. Vyas, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 28.4.2004 (Annexure 4) may be quashed and set aside.2. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant petition, are that on 1.8.1993, the petitioner entered in the service of the respondent-department, being surplus from the General Administration Department (GAD). In the year, 1986, the respondent-department published a seniority list of technical employees of Deedwana Division dated 31.3.1985 (Annexure 1), in which name of the petitioner was shown as Helper at Serial No. 5. Again, vide office order dated 22.6.2001 (Annexure 2), a provisional seniority list of regular employees was issued, in which also, the petitioner was shown as Helper. It was also mentioned in the aforesaid order that if any employee has any objection with regard to the said provisional seniority list (Annexure 1), he can send the representation along with the concerned service record within fifteen days. It is further averred ...
Hambir and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj82; 2005(4)WLC742
Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. In the double murder case, accused appellants, five in number, were placed on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bharatpur. The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 18th October, 2001, in sessions case No. 120/2001 convicted and sentenced each of the accused appellants as under:-(1) Hambir (2) Mahendra (3) Govinda (4) Jeet Singh (5) Balram @ Balla:Under Section 302/149 IPC :--Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, one month's rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 435 IPC:--Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, fifteen days rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 147 IPC :--One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, ten days rigorous imprisonment.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. A written report (Ex.P 11) was submitted by Nahar Singh (PW6) (father of the deceased Rajvir) at Police Stat...
Prithvi Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2865; 2004(2)WLC436
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been presented in the Registry of this Court on 22.12.2000. The petitioner has primarily challenged impugned orders An-nex.62 dated 4.5.1991 whereby pursuant to a departmental enquiry the Appointing Authority has imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service and Annex.64 dated 21.7.1992 whereby the appellate authority maintained the penalty order. On its face, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and, therefore, at the outset this Court called upon the counsel for the petitioner to show sufficient cause why this petition may not be dismissed only on the ground of laches.2. The gruelling narration of the facts leadings to delay in filing the writ petition is that on accrual of the cause of action, after dismissal of his appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner engaged Shri Vinayak M. Joshi, Advocate and handed over him the file alongwith all relevant material. He also made payment of the full fees and expenses. It i...
Vijendra Kumar Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: 2(2006)DMC568
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. Appellant Vijendra Kumar has filed this appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.7.2003 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Doongarpur in Sessions Case No. 26/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Under Punishment Section 498A, IPC Three years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 304B, IPC Seven years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 in default of payment to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the accused-appellant was allowed benefit of set-off under Section 428, Cr.P.C.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an application Ex. P/1 was filed by P.W.1 Bhagwatilal, father of deceased Neetu, before the SDM, Doongarpur, stating therein that he had married his daughter Ne...
Shivlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2385
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on the case diary. Investigation under Sections 498A and 406 IPC on the report lodged by complainant wife is pending against the petitioner.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Roznamcha report dated 24.3.2005 indicates that complainant herself went with her father and that the Stridhan property as been handed over at Police Station by the father of the petitioner on 10.9.2005.3. Learned P.P. although has opposed the application but could not controvert the above facts.4. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon the merits of the case, I consider it just and proper to release the accused petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.5. It is, therefore, ordered that accused petitioner Shiv Lal shall be released on bail in FIR No. 159/2005 registered at Police Station Nawalgarh D...
Ganesh NaraIn Podar Vs. Official Liquidator of Jaipur Spinning and Wea ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC102; [2006]133CompCas843(Raj); RLW2005(4)Raj2952; 2006(1)WLC110
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant special appeal has been filed by non-applicants against order dt.19.4.91 passed by learned Single Judge in Company Application No. 15/98, whereby preliminary objection raised by appellant with regard to filing of application Under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') being time barred, was over-ruled.2. Brief facts, relevant for present controversy, are that M/s. Swadesh Polytex Ltd. Gaziabad moved an application for winding up of a Company M/s. Jaipur Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. ('Company'), which was wound up vide order dt.02.12.83. Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Liquidator of the Company. The Official Liquidator filed Application No. 15/89 on 01.12.98 Under Section 543(1) of the Act for seeking direction for inquiry to be made and for passing appropriate orders against non-applicants (appellant) to compensate the Company in liquidation for loss, together with interest @ 18% p.a. on account of their misconduct...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »