Rajasthan Court November 2007 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.
L.Rs. of Natwar Lal Vs. Gotam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN63
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1.This appeal has been preferred to challenge the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara dt. 17.02.1993.2. The claimants non-appellants preferred claim petition, stating that on 07.11.1986, at about 5.00 p.m., Kanji and Dharia were going on bicycle to village Miya-ka-Parla. On the way at Ghatol Anandpuri road, a Bus bearing No. RJB 2772 hit bicycle, due to which Kanji and Dharia fell down and sustained injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. Dharia died in the hospital, whereas Kanji sustained fracture. Due to death of Dharia, claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was claimed towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- were claimed towards mental agony to the parents of Dharia and Rs. 10,000/- for wife.3. In reply to the claim petition, Insurance Company disputed the income of Dharia, apart from disputing the issuance of the cover note. The Insurance Company disp...
Sheela (Smt.) Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN529
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against order dt. 02.05.2007 in Cr. Misc. Appl. No. 5/07 in Sess. Case No. 2/2007 whereby trial Judge (Spl. Judge, NDPS Cases) Jaipur rejected application of petitioner for release of Car (Tata Indica) No. CH-3E-9550 seized during investigation in FIR No. 305/06 lodged at PS Pragpura (Jaipur District) for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act.2. Pendente investigation, Car (Tata Indica) No. CH-3E-9550 of manufacturing year 2001 was seized by investigating agency on 10.09.2006. After challan was filed before trial Court, petitioner filed an application for release of aforesaid vehicle on superdginama under Section 457, Cr.P.C. pendente trial. Learned trial Judge after taking note of material on record, rejected the application on the premise that this vehicle has been used in commission of alleged offence and during investigation, statements were recoded of alleged other owners (Harprit & Mahendra Lal) of the ve...
Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Raj61; RLW2008(2)Raj1796
ORDER1. This bunch of writ petitions (detailed in Schedule-A) have been filed before the Division Bench, seeking to challenge the orders passed by the Collector, under Chapters IV, V and Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 29 and/or Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, and seeking to challenge the validity of the provisions of proviso to Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, and since for the present purposes they involve the common question of law, petitions are being disposed by this common order.2. We need not encumber the Judgment by narrating facts of each individual case, and may confine our Judgment to the validity of provisions noticed above only, as the matters have come up before Division Bench only on account of validity of above provisions having been challenged.3. To start with, we may be gainfully reproduce the provisions of Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as a whole, which reads as under:65. Revision by ...
Union Bank of India Vs. Ratan Prakash and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC139
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The only point involved and argued by learned Counsel for the appellant is about pendente lite interest, which has not been awarded by the Trial Court nor any reason has been assigned for not awarding the same.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,563.78 under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein it was pleaded that the defendant-respondents, in order to purchase a Matador Diesel Pick-up Van obtained a term loan upto the limit of Rs. 39,000/- and executed a demand promissory note on 6.9.1976 in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. The amount was payable with quarterly rests interest. The defendants failed to make full payment of the loan amount with interest, therefore, the present suit was filed.3. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte as they did not appear in spite of service of summcns. The defendant No. 3 filed an application for leave-to-defend the s...
Rani Devi and ors. Vs. Devilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ858
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment dated 26.3.1991, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Claim Case No. 40 of 1989.2. Claimants-appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 11,70,000 stating the fact that on 20.11.1988 at about 5 p.m., when Rajendra Kumar was near Telephone Exchange building and moving towards Padampur, then jeep bearing No. RSC 9170 driven by Devilal, caused accident, resulting in death of Rajendra Kumar. It was urged that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Devilal.3. Reply was filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Tribunal, denying their liabilities.4. It is contended that authorised driver of the jeep involved in the accident was Diwan Chand but jeep was unauthorisedly driven by Devilal, as nobody authorised Devilal to drive the said jeep. It was further contended that the owner of the jeep is only Panchayat Samiti and not the government. It was lastly conte...
Lrs. of Nathi Lal Vs. Shivdan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN447
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner-defendant submitted an application under Section 90 of the Evidence Act for drawing presumption about the Will dt. 13.11.1948. Said application of the petitioner-defendant was dismissed by the trial Court only on the ground that the issues have already been framed and burden to prove the Will as per the issue No. 9 is upon the defendant, therefore, there is no justification for drawing presumption about the due execution of the Will under Section 90 of the Evidence Act.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason given by the Court below for rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 90 of the Evidence Act by impugned order dt. 06.04.2005 is contrary to law as well as contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment delivered in Hazarilal and Anr. v. Sh. Shyamlal and Ors. reported in 2007 (1) WLC (Raj) 789 wherein issue was referred to the Divi...
Khayali Lal and anr. Vs. Isamiya and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1019
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.12.1992 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in Claim Case No. 3 of 1989, the claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal.2. A claim petition was filed by the claimants contending that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. 7435, car No. GBQ 966 was dashed, resulting in death of car driver Kalu Miya. The dependants of Kalu Miya maintained claim application, claiming Rs. 3,94,000. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,15,000 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent in favour of the claimants, but out of the total claim allowed in favour of the claimants, the liability of the insurance company was maintained to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 and remaining liability was fastened on the owner of the truck and ors.3. Assailing the judgment of the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the appellants pressed only one issue which is pertaining to the liability of the insurance c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›