Rajasthan Court September 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Narayan Jat and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC570
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. Although both these appeals arise out of two different awards, both dated June 30, 2004, but the appeals are based on the same factual matrix and raise identical legal issues. Therefore, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. The appellant, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the said two awards passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur.2. The brief facts of the case are that Heera Lal Jat was the driver on truck, bearing registration No. RJ 19-G 0993, while Ram Narain Jat was working on the said truck as Khalasi (cleaner). On 9.10.2003, the said truck met with an accident near village Khariya Mithapur under P.S. Bilara, District Jodhpur. Consequently, Heera Lal Jat expired and Ram Narayan Jat broke both of his feet below the ankle. Since Heera Lal Jat's family members, which included his aged parents and his minor son, suddenly lost the sole bread earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the Workm...
Saraswati (Smt.) Vs. Shri Gopal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj33; RLW2006(4)Raj3426
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1994 by which the District Judge, Bikaner in Petition No.111/1990 allowed the respondent's application filed under Section 12(109b) and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') and granted divorce decree.3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnised on 12.5.1986. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born after about 18 months. The respondent husband's allegation in the divorce petition was that the appellant was suffering from the disease Epilepsy, she was sick since before her marriage and the appellant's parents got the appellant married with the respondent by suppressing this fact. It is submitted that on the day one, when the appellant came to the house of the respondent, there was attack of Epilepsy and she fell down and all symptoms of Epilepsy were apparent from the body of ...
Chandrabhan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj98
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In an unfortunate incident, in which six persons lost their lives, 38 persons were nabbed out of which 36 were acquitted and two were convicted. The convicted accused preferred appeal against the finding of conviction, whereas brother of one of the deceased filed revision petition against the judgment of acquittal. Serious question that requires our consideration in the matters is - Should the law be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope?2. In a nut shell, the facts which led to filing of instant appeal and revision are as follows:On May 20, 2000 at 10.45 p.m. Babu Lal Sarpanch of village Panchayat Hudiya Kala along with 8-10 persons visited Police Station Mandhan and lodged an oral report Ex. P/130 and stated that at the house of Gopi Ram Yadav dead body of Gopirak and 3-4 other persons of his family are lying. It was further stated that certain persons who were in 2-3 jeeps and who were unknown pers...
Rafiq Ahmed and ors. Vs. Ramjani and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3239
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Sawai Mad-hopur, whereby the learned Judge has decreed the plaintiffs' suit.2. Plaintiff Ramjani filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and possession on 0.1.1975. On 5.5.1977 the plaintiff filed an application for amendment in the plaint, which, after hearing counsel for the parties, was allowed vide order dated 22.7.1977 and accordingly the plaintiff filed amended plaint on 6.8.1977. The plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of the property, viz., 3 shops and 3 rooms on the floor on the basis of Patta issued on 15.9.58. He continued to reside in the rooms. Out of 3 shops, he gave center shop to his father Chand Khan for his residence and let out remaining shops to the tenants. It was averred that his mother died when he was 8 years old and after the death of his mother, his father got married to Smt. Bashiran, defendant N...
Rama @ Ram Lal and 5 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj512
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, nine in number, along with three co-accused were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi, who while acquitting co-accused, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Rama @ Ram Lal:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and Tine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.Under Section 326/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 324/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Under Section 323/149 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Heera Lal, Sheoji, Rameshwar @ Ramu, Panna Lal, Prem Shankar @ Prema, Ram Ratan @ Ratan @ Ratan Lal, Moti Lal @ Moti, Dhuli Lal @ Dhuliya:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six mon...
Gopi Ram Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj929
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 31.7.1991 (Annexure 9) as well as order passed on 15.1.1993 (Annexure 11) whereby review petition submitted to the Governor has been dismissed being barred by time.2. While working as Superintending Engineer, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1958') vide memorandum dated 23.8.1986 for supervisory negligence over Mr. N.C. Garg, JEN and V.N. Sharma, Sub Engineer for the period of his working as Executive Engineer. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet which was examined and the said enquiry was converted into one under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 vide order dated 14.10.1990. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner, punishment of censure was imposed vide order dated 31.7.1991 (Annx. 9) even after finding that though th...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Mubeen and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1585
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The respondents six in number, were the accused on the file of learned Sessions Judge Alwar bearing Sessions Case No. 55/2005 under Section 396 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act. Learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated May 5, 2006 acquitted respondents of all the charges. Being aggrieved by the finding of learned Sessions Judge, the State of Rajasthan submitted petition seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'CrPC'). This court on May 26, 2006 granted leave and summoned the respondents through bailable warrants. Thereafter on August 14, 2006, the State of Rajasthan made an application under Section 390 read with 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling the order dated May 26, 2006 and to commit the respondents to prison after summoning them through non-bailable warrants. Similar prayer has been sought in the revision petition filed by the widow of deceased.2. It is the prosecution case that Ramavatar Goyal (now owner of Petrol Pu...
Mahaveer Prasad Saroj Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation T ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3307
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard earned Counsel for the plaintiffappellant.2. This second appeal, on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th of August, 1999, passed by Additional District Judge, No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 100/1992, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27th of July, 1992 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 554/1987 (329/1987), whereby the learned lower court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration.3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare the order dated 21st of August, 1985 as illegal and void, whereby the service of the plaintiff was terminated from the post of Conductor. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was selected by the Selection Committee and was appointed on the post of Conductor on probation vide ord...
Kashmir Trading Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Raj)468; [2007]291ITR228(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 by the assessee. The assessee suggested the following substantial questions stating them to be substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal:1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not accepting the claim of bed debt, especially when necessary evidence in respect of the fact that the debt became bad has already been produced ?2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not allowing the bad debt in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decided in case of CIT v. Dunlop India Ltd. : [1994]209ITR221(Cal) where the Hon'ble Court held that the entry of writing off is prima facie evidence of the debt having become bad but not a conclusive criterion and the onus rests on the assessee to establish that the debt has become bad in the relevant year ?3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the bad debt, especially whe...
Rekha Kumari Rawat and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj1
Govind Mathur, J.1. The candidature of the petitioners has been rejected from consideration for appointment as Senior Teacher under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1971') on the count that they do not possess two subjects taught in secondary schools with degree of Graduation. The principal point, therefore, require determination in these petitions for writ is whether the term 'schools' used in entry No. 8 column 4 of Section F of the Schedule appended with the Rules of 1971 is confined to the schools imparting education upto secondary level or the senior higher secondary schools are inclusive to it?2. The entry No. 8 of Section F to Schedule appended with the Rules of 1971 read as under:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 98. (a) 50% Graduate 1. Teacher Graduate 1. Jr./ Range[Senior by direct or 2. Labor equivalent Deputy wiseTeacher] recruitme equivalent atory examinati Director ofEnforcem nt & 50% by Examinati Assistants on with Educati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »