Rajasthan Court August 2006 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Dhariwal and Co. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj123
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant, against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner, dt. 22.4.1987, decreeding the plaintiffs' suit for Rs. 19,229.49, along with interest from the date of suit, being 19.1.1982, till recovery, along with cost.2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, being a partnership firm, and the partners of the firm, filed a suit against the defendants, alleging inter alia, that the plaintiff No. 1 is a registered partnership firm, while the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 are its partners. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 3 supplied certain goods to the plaintiff, pursuant to the order of the plaintiff, and the said goods were sent to the plaintiff by being booked with the Railway Administration vide Railway Receipt No. 14833 Invoice No. 15 dt. 24/16.1.1981, from Mithapur to Bikaner, freight amounting to Rs. 2627/- was to be paid by the consignee. The goods were to be delivered by the Railway Admini...
Raju Sharma Vs. Mularam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC178
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. These five appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 19.3.1996 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the bus RJ 19P P11 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 hit the jeep RST 1262 at about 6.00 a.m. on 9.5.1992 in front of the Pink City Petrol Pump, Jaipur. The appellants who were travelling by the jeep suffered injuries in the accident. After hearing the parties the learned Tribunal by a common judgment dated 19.3.1996 passed an award in favour of the claimants-appellants as under:------------------------------------------------------------Name of claimant-appellant Appeal No. Award Amount------------------------------------------------------------Raju Sharma 628/96 Rs. 30,000Boduram 620/96 Rs. 30,000Ram Dayal 630/96 Rs. 45,000Roodmal 631/96 Rs. 5,000Smt. Nathi Devi 633/96 Rs. 15,000----------------------------------------------------------...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hakim and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3206
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Cluster of these appeals raises meaningful question -Whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the passengers who were travelling in a goods vehicle (without any authority of owner of the goods) that met with an accident, on account of which some passengers died and others suffered bodily injury.2. This question arises in the circumstances set out below:On May 19, 1997 about 50-60 persons along with three 'TAZIAS' were proceeding from Dug to Vinayka Bandh in a truck No. RJ 20G 0978. Around 7.15 PM upper Canopy of TAZ1A touched electric wire and truck caught fire as a result of which several persons died and many others sustained injuries. As many as 32 claim petitions were filed in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jhalawar (for short 'Tribunal'). Learned Tribunal passed the award in favour of claimants on September 13, 2005 holding that since driver carried passengers in the truck without the knowledge of the truck owner, it cannot...
Lrs of Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2983
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The Government of India, requisitioned the agricultural land measuring 130.20 acres in the village Mithari Khurd, Jasol and Data in the District Banner in Rajasthan, in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952') along with other lands. The lands involved in these two appeals are of Khasara Nos. 34 and 36. Said requisitioned land was taken possession of by the Defence Ministry in the year 1977. For this requisitioned land of khasara Nos. 34, 36, 37 and 51, measuring 133.20 acres (333 bighas), the rent was fixed as Rs. 75.20 per bigha per year. Subsequent to it, in the year 1981, it was decided that the said land be acquired for the defence purposes and, therefore, a notification under Section 7 of the Act of 1952 was issued by the Government of India and was published in the official gazette on 20.8.1981. The District Collector, Banner fixed the compensation amount for the land...
Kanha Vs. Kalu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3070; 2006(4)WLC500
Vineet Kothari, J.1. The suit filed by Kanha Meena son of Shri Kishan Meena for cancellation of gift deed whereby he is alleged to have gifted away his entire immovable and movable property to his daughter's son Kalu, was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bundi by the impugned judgment dated 5.3.1986 and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff Kanha (since deceased) is in appeal before this Court.2. Kanha at age about 65 years is said to have executed Ex. A. 1 gift deed on 28.1.1972 in favour of defendant Kalu who was minor of about 12-13 years and was son of eldest daughter of Kanha Smt. Keshar wife of Bhanwar Lal and the said gift deed (Bakhshishnama) was drafted by Kapur Chand Nuwal, Advocate DW. 5, on 28.1.1972 when Smt. Keshar and her husband Bhanwar Lal, defendant Nos. 2 & 3 along with defendant No. 1 Kalu brought the plaintiff Kanha to Bundi when he was suffering from some illness as he was living in village Maija, they came for treatment of plaintiff Kanha to nearby t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Banswara Fabrics Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Raj)193
1. By the very same order under appeal the Tribunal has decided three appeals filed by the assessee. Three appeals have been filed by the assessee relating to the asst. yrs. 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, which have been decided in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred three appeals one of which being DB IT Appeal No. 56/2003, related to the asst. yr. 1987-88. In all the three appeals including the present one, following four questions of law were stated to be substantial questions of law arising for consideration against the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 28th Aug., 2002:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition on account of interest chargeable on the debit balances of (i) M/s Jai Mangal Investment and Trading Co. and (ii) M/s Banswara Textile Mills Ltd. on the ground that the debit balances were trade debts, ignoring the fact that both the companies are owned by the same gro...
Dhirendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj55
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the continuation of the investigation in FIR No. 63/2005 registered at P.S. Udyog Nagar, District Bharatpur for the offence under Section 323, 498A and 496 IPC.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 28.2.2002 according to Hindu rites. However, after the marriage the petitioner discovered that his wife is physically ill. Whenever he would enquire about her health, she would quarrel with him and his parents. During the period of pregnancy and even after the pregnancy he asked respondent No. 2 about consuming lot of medicines. But, the respondent No. 2 would not tell him the reasons for consuming so many medicines. Once he even saw her vomiting blood. When he enquired about vomiting of the blood, she made some excuses and claimed that the blood was coming from her teeth. On 6.3.03, the respondent No. 2 delivered a girl. The child was born with a tumor on her right eye. When the same was e...
Rajendra Surekha (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1025
P.S. Asopa, J.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has initially challenged the selection of respondent No. 3 & 4 (Dr. Sudhir Mehta & Dr. Rajiv Bagarhatta) against the vacancies of the year 1990-91 for the post of Lecturer in General Medicine and to direct the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission to accordingly amend the result of the selection of the year 1990-91. The petitioner has further sought consequential direction of appointment to the said post against the year 1990- 91 with seniority.2. The facts in brief of the case are that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition initially challenging the eligibility of Dr. Sudhir Mehta and Dr. Rajiv Bagarhatta (respondent No. 3 & 4 in the original writ petition) on the ground that these two private respondents were not eligible for appointment against the vacancies of the year 1990-91 to the post of Lecturer (General Medicine) on account of not completing the post-graduation degree i.e. M.D. in General Medic...
Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. Mohan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC755
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. These two appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 28.2.1995 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 4.8.1990 at about 11.00 a.m. the appellants Prem Prakash Mathur and his wife Smt. Kanti Mathur were going from Bapu Nagar to SMS Hospital, Jaipur by Scooter No. RSR-1623. The appellant Prem Prakash Mathur was driving the scooter whereas the appellant Smt. Kanti Mathur was a pillion rider. When the appellant Prem Prakash Mathur stopped the scooter at the traffic signal of Ram Bagh Circle a Tempo No. RSM-1425 came from behind and hit the scooter in consequence of which the two appellants Prem Prakash Mathur and Mrs. Kanti Mathur sustained injuries. According to the claim petition the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the owner and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the Temp...
Murli Vs. Madan Lal Bhargava
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1476
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the stay application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC.2. Learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant submits that this second appeal, on the substantial question of law involved therein, has. already been admitted today, therefore, interim stay order passed by this Court on 4.5.2001 directing both the parties to maintain the status quo be confirmed till the last disposal of this second appeal.3. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the First Appellate Court passed a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff way back on 13.3.2001 on the ground of material alteration of the rented premises but till date the plaintiff could not get possession of the rented premises because of ex-parte interim stay order granted by this Court, therefore, he contended that the interim stay order should be vacated and the appellant be directed to hand over the possession of the rented premise...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »