Rajasthan Court March 2006 Judgments
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1431; 2006(4)WLC262
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the imposition of the condition in the order dated 7.10.2005 whereby he has been directed to give specimen of his signature/handwriting to the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation.2. The brief facts of the case are that a case for offences under Sections 420 & 467 IPC was registered against the accused vide FIR No. 209/2005 registered at Police Station Niwai, District Tonk. Subsequently, the petitioner had moved a regular bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code' for short. While granting the benefit of a regular bail to the accused petitioner vide order dated 7.10.2005, the learned Court below was pleased to impose a condition as under:**izkFkhZ dks tekur dh lqfo/kk bl 'krZ ds lkFk fn;k tkuk mfpr gS fd ;fn mDr izdj.k esa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk ;g vko';d le>k tkos fd izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ds uewus ds gLrk{kj dh vko';drk fookfnr gLrk{kjksa ls feyku djus gsrq...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottam Nagar (Dr.) Vs. Raj. Hindi Granth Academy and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR854]; RLW2006(3)Raj2009
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The matter appears to be having a chequered history. The petitioner was initially appointed as Director of the respondent-Academy on probation for two years vide order dated 30.12.1981. The period of probation came to be extended from time to time till 8.1.1985 when the period of probation came to be an end. The order of non-extension passed on 8.1.1985 came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a writ petition before this Court. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to join his duties as Director of the Academy in pursuance to orders passed by the State Government on 2.1.1990. After joining his duties on 2.1.1990, apprehending his termination, the petitioner again preferred a writ petition before this Court. Apart from holding the respondent-Academy as not a State so as to attract Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7.3.1991. However, an observatio...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ420
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. These two appeals preferred respectively by the insurer of one of the vehicles involved in the accident and by the claimants against the same award dated 1.9.1998 made by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur in M.A.C. Case No. 604 of 1995 were heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. The insurer contends that the victim being driver of the Roadways bus involved in the accident, having suffered employment injury and being covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.S.I. Act'/'the Act of 1948'), the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act'/'the Act of 1988'). On the other hand, the claimants seek enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. The facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in these appeals could be noticed thus: The claimants, appellants in C.M.A....
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abhay Singh Yadav and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2175
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant insurance company, has challenged the award dated 15.10.2005 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the claimants, for the fatal injuries sustained by their son in a motor accident.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.2.2001 Mintu, son of the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. RJ 14-C 6855 along with his family for attending a marriage. Around 7.30 p.m. while the jeep was moving at a moderate speed, a truck bearing registration No. DL 1-GB 4299, was standing on the left side of the road outside a dhaba. Although it was night, the truck neither had any indicator, nor any reflector on to let the drivers coming from behind know that the truck was parked on the road. Since the driver of the jeep did not see the parked truck, it collided with the truck. Resultantly, four persons died...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Abhay Singh Yadav and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC104
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant Insurance Company, has challenged the b award dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, District Jaipur (Raj.) whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the claimants, for the injuries sustained by them in an accident.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.2.2001 Mintu, son of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was travelling in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ-14/C-6855, along with her family, for attending a marriage. Around 7.30 p.m. while the jeep was moving at a moderate speed, a truck, bearing Registration No. DI-1GB-4299, was standing on the left side of the road outside a Dhaba. Although it was night, the truck neither had any indicator, nor any reflector on to let the drivers coming from behind know that the truck was parked on the road. Since the driver of the jeep did not see the parked truck, it collided with the truck. Resultantly, four persons died and others, lik...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1513; 2006(3)WLC159
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.2.2005 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Baran whereby the application for taking the written statement filed on 28.9.2004 has been rejected on the ground that the provisions of Order-8 Rule-1 of C.P.C. are mandatory and in the application no reason has been assigned as to why the Court should ask him to file the written statement, whose aim is also to delay the proceedings.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit for partition of ancestral property described in para No. 1 of the plaint. The Trial Court has fixed the date 22.9.2004 for filing the written statement but on 22.9.2004 it was recorded that the service on the petitioner-defendant No. 1 was effected on 12.3.2004 and the written statement has not been filed. Thus, the same cannot be filed after 90 days. After recording the ...
Tag this Judgment!Save the Children Fund U.K. and anr. Vs. Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1433; 2006(3)WLC100
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.9.2004 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which, the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Programme Coordinator by the petitioners vide appointment order dated 25.7.2000 which was made effective from 1.9.2000 initially for a period of three years subject to condition that the services can be terminated with the notice period of three months on either side or salary in lieu thereof as per Clause 6 of Service Contract dated 25.7.2000 and the service conditions shall be governed by the 'Staff Charter for India' as amended from time to time.3. The services of the respondent were terminated on 24.10.2000 by the Principal Office New Delhi and all his dues including three months salary in lieu of notice were paid to him on 26.3.2001. Ag...
Tag this Judgment!Vimla Raghav (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1675; 2006(3)WLC18
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 5.3.2003 whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Todabhim had declined to take cognizance against the accused respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences under Section 147, 341, 323, 354, 504, 427, 456 and 149 IPC. The petitioner has also challenged the Order dated 3.7.04 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the former order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Co- ordinator of Balaji Seva Samiti, Muradabad. The Samiti organizes 'bhajan' 'kirtan' and 'ratri jagran' at several holy places. On 5.8.2000, the petitioner and members of the Samiti had come to Ghata Mehandipur Balaji and were staying at Gogadhan Dharmshala. While the petitioner was busy in conducting 'bhajan' and 'kirtan' at Saharan Dharmshala, at about 2.00 a.m., some of the girls of the Samiti rushed to the petitioner and informed her that D.P. Singh, Daulat Singh a...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar Tyagi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2023; 2006(4)WLC352
Harbans Lal, J.1. The present misc. petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by petitioners Arvind Kumar Tyagi and M/s. Jai Shree Agro Industries Ltd. seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated against them.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner No. 2 M/s. Jai Shree Agro Industries Ltd. is a pesticide (Insecticide) manufacturing Industry and petitioner No. 1 Arvind Kumar Tyagi is its employee. License Under Section 13 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 was obtained. The sample was taken on 21.7.1998 by the Insecticide Inspector and on examination it was found that it does not conform to the relevant prescribed specification as per the report of the Analyst dated 10.9.1998.3. The notice was sent to M/s. Kishan Beej Bhandar and also to petitioner No. 2 on 24.9.1998. Reply to the said notice was given by petitioner No.2 vide letter/reply dated 5.10.1998 within 28 days praying for re-examination of the samples but the same were not sent for re-examinati...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Chand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC285; 2006(4)WLC385
ORDERHarbans Lal, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.12.2005.2. Respondent No. 2 Mrs. Rajeshwari Mohan Sharma filed a complaint against petitioners before the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 20, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was forwarded by the Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur whereupon FIR No. 7/1999 came to be registered against the petitioners. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC.3. Learned Counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, these proceedings may be quashed so that there may not be any more bitterness between them and they may live their life peacefully. They have submitted on the strength of the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. II ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »