Rajasthan Court February 2007 Judgments
inderjit Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1343; AIR2007Raj144; RLW2007(4)Raj2729
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. Having lost their son in an 'untoward incident' in a train, having lost their claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, the appellants are challenging the judgment dated 6-8-2004 before this Court.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 3/4-8-99 the appellants' son, Surendra Singh was travelling in the Awadh Express with a valid II class ticket from Lucknow to Kota. According to the witnesses, the compartment was over-crowded. Near the Ranthambore Railway Station, the train forcefully jerked. Consequently, their son, who was standing near the gate, was hit by the Home Signal. Their son was travelling with his other brother, Pawan Singh and with his cousin brother, Saghan Singh. As a result of hitting the Home Signal, their son sustained grievous head injury. His brother and cousin brother caught hold of him and pulled him back into the compartment. They did not let him fall off the train. Although the Railway Police Staff at th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1018
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates compensation for the lands bearing khasra Nos. 99 and 101 measuring 24 bighas situate at Jhalana Chod within Sanganer tehsil of Jaipur district.2. The land in question was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO) under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, then in vogue. Notification in terms of Section 4 the Act was issued on 18.7.1979. On 22.6.1982 a composite notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was issued. Award was made on 2.1.1989. Compensation however was not paid to the respondents, owners of the land in question, as the RIICO did not make the money available to the Land Acquisition Officer for payment to them. In the circumstances, the respondents filed writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4463/1991 seeking direction for payment of compensation. By the order impugned dat...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Keshar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN516
Rajesh Balia, J.1. All the respondents have been served. Mr. Bhansali appears for respondent No. 3. Other respondents have not put in appearance.2. The appeal is against the order dt. 08.04.2005 by which the appeal filed by the present appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that the application under Section 5 moved by the appellant as the appeal was barred by 12 days, does not disclose sufficient cause which could have prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within limitation. Merit of the case has not been examined and it was the first appeal before the learned Single Judge.3. Having perused the application we are of the opinion that pedantic view has been taken by the learned Single Judge on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is now well settled that one of the essential considerations for considering the application for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is the merit of the case and ordi...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirendra Manharbhai (Shri) and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1132
N.N. Mathur, J.1. 'Nathdwara' a small town but historically significant temple town in Rajasthan enjoys devotional prominence amongst the followers of Lord Krishna the world over and houses the unique 12th Century Idol of Shreenathji.2. The petitioners - devotees of the temple by way of instant Public Interest Litigation have voiced grievance against the present management in the matter of arrangement of 'darshan' and distribution of 'prasad'. The petitioners have also sought direction commanding the respondent No. 2 - Goswami Shri Rakeshji Maharaj to ensure the public and statutory duty. This Court by order dated 22.11.2004 directed the respondent - Temple Board to prepare a detailed plan of the temple and town development and also the time bound action plan to redress the grievance of the devotees. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the entire temple is being managed from Bombay as the respondent No. 2 resides and holds all the meetings at Bombay itself. Thus, a directio...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar and anr. Vs. Virendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Raj117; RLW2007(2)Raj1574
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent, despite service.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 21.9.2004 by which the executing court allowed the objection petition filed by the judgment debtor under Section 47 CPC and held that despite the fact that the stay petition was dismissed against the execution of the decree by the appellate court (this Court), the decree cannot be executed because of mere pendency of the appeal. The said view was taken by the executing court on the basis of one judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Anr. : 2004(164)ELT375(SC) .3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit for injunction and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.7.1990 against the petitioners and Bachani Devi, Pushpa Devi and Bhoturam etc. In the suit, the petitioners filed counter claim. The resp...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Vs. Resident Engineer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2482
K.C. Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.11.2001 by which the writ petition filed by the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board through Resident Engineer, Division 111, Ballabhbari, Kota, was allowed and the award passed in favour of the respondent-workman, who is the appellant herein, was set aside on the ground that the respondent/appellant herein-the workman, had failed to prove that he had discharged duties for 240 days within twelve months as he had attempted to prove his case only on the basis of affidavit which could not be proved by the muster roll furnished by the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board. The Labour Court, however, had passed the award in favour of the appellant-workman granting him reinstatement along with full back-wages against which the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board had filed a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the award passed by the labour Court in favour ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birbal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj573
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant, Oriental Insurance Company, challenges the award dated 30.9.2002 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner', for short) whereby the Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,42,082/- to the claimant- respondent, Birbal.2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Birbal, was alleged it employed by Bhanwar Lal, his father. He met with an incident on 7.10.1999 while he was operating the thresher attached to the tractor, bearing Registration No. RJ-23-R-4079, which was insured with the appellant Company. Due to this accident, his upper right arm was crushed. Eventually, it was amputated. The son filed a claim petition against the father stating therein that he was employed by his father on a salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month and was also paid Rs. 50/- per day as expenses. Since he has suffered the accident during the course of employment, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- from his fa...
Tag this Judgment!Sahab Singh Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj567
K.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner-Sahab Singh alleging that the detenu Smt. Manju daughter of Shri Mansingh resident of Dhaval, Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra (U.P.), who is his legally married wife, was abducted by respondent No. 4- Suresh S/o Mangi Lal. He has alleged that his wife is in the illegal detention of respondent No. 4 Suresh as she had been taken away forcibly by respondent No. 4.2. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the aforesaid averment after which the respondent No. 4 Suresh appeared through his Advocate and the Government Advocate also represented the respondent-State as also the Superintendent of Police and SHO, Bharatpur.3. The alleged detenu thereafter has been produced before this Court today and we questioned her in open Court as to whether she had been taken away forcibly by the respondent No. 4 Suresh. She categorically denied this part of the allegation levelled by the petitioner and she stated that ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C.Ex. Vs. Suncity Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2009[13]STR86
1. Both these petitions raise identical and simple questions. In both cases the respondent manufacturer has exported goods manufactured by him by paying duty thereon while removing goods from factory and then has claimed rebate of the duty paid by him as the goods were exempted from payment of duty.2. The Revenue has contended that since goods exported out of country were exempted from payment of duty, therefore, the amount paid by the respondent manufacturer in each case cannot be treated as duty paid and he is not entitled to rebate on account of duty paid on goods removed from factory/authorised warehouse for export out of India.3. However, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner Union of India is not, in any event, entitled to retain the amount in question. If no duty was leviable and the assessee was not required to pay the duty still if he has paid the duty which has been received by the petitioners they cannot retain the same on any ground and must refund the amou...
Tag this Judgment!Saleem, Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN137
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These three appeals arise out of common judgment and order, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kama, vide its judgment and order dt. 17.10.2002, in Sessions Case No. 51/2002, convicted and sentenced five accused-appellants, namely, Saleem, Hakmuddin, Jacum, Naeem and Fakru @ Tahir under Section 399, IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, each; in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. And, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.3. Accused Saleem has preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 512/2006; accused Hakmuddin, Jacum and Naeem have preferred joint appeal being S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1465/2002; and, accused Fakru @ Tahir has preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1570/...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »