Rajasthan Court May 2008 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.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN255
Manak Mohta, J.1. These appeals are directed by the Insurance Company as well as by the claimants against the judgment and award dt. 22.09.1994 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in MACT Case No. 113 of 1991 whereby; the learned Judge has partly allowed the claim petition in favour of claimants while holding the responsibility for the payment of compensation on the non-claimant-appellant and has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,28,432/- plus interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 21.12.1990.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.11.1990 at about 1.10 p.m. Ganpat Singh (deceased) was coming towards Jalorigate, Jodhpur on his Scooter bearing No. RNJ 8388. As soon as, he reached near Chief Medical & Health Office, a Bus being No. RJ-19P-555 which was coming from his opposite side and was being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed by its driver Roopa Ram (non-claimant-respondent No. 6), who hi...
Brijesh Kumar Chandolia Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2665
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant petition has been filed for quashing order dt. 5.11.05 (Ann. 8) of rejection of his representation dt. 22.1.04 (Ann. 2) seeking expunction of adverse remarks communicated to petitioner vide letter dt. 22,12.03 (Ann. 1).2. Petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service and after his regular selection joined service on 29.12,1997. During annual appraisal assessment year 2002-03, for almost seven months from September to March, 2003, petitioner had worked as Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, for which, remarks in his annual performance appraisal report ('APAR') were made by Reporting Officer and conveyed vide letter dt. 22.12.03 (Ann. 1) as alleged considering them as adverse ad infra:Hkkx AA1- lkekU; ewY;kadu % ukxfjd vf/kdkj i= ds fdz;kUo;u esa usr`Ro dk vHkko jgkA3- D;k vkidh tkudkjh esa ,slh dksbZ ckr vkbZ gS tks vf/kdkjh dh lR;fu'Bk vFkok mlds }kjk drZO; dk bZekunkjh ls ikyu djus dh ;ksX;rk ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkyrh gS;fn gka rks mlds ckjs esa fooj.k...
Jawahar Lal Vs. Chief Accounts Officers, Panchayati Raj Department Dev ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR286]
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. At joint request, matter is finally heard at admission stage.While working as Gram Sevak/Ex Officio Secretary in Panchayat Samiti, Piprali (Sikar), petitioner suffered with a sever a headache in May, 2006 and initially consulted a local doctor at Sikar and after some preliminary diagnosis, doctor at Sikar advised him to consult an expert doctor at Jaipur. Ultimately, on 27.6.2006, petitioner consulted Dr. M.S. Punia, Associate Professor, Neurosurgery (Unit-1) SMS Hospital, who advised for MRI Brain-on its medical test, petitioner was advised to undergo surgical operation forthwith as he was suffering from brain tumour. As alleged, since there was long queue at SMS Hospital for such surgical operation of patients and in view of emergent situation being brain tumour, petitioner was able to take decision and being dependent upon family members at that point of time, they decided to get him surgically operated through Dr. S.R. Dharkar in S.K. Soni Hospital Jaipur where h...
Bharti Singh and anr. and Mahaveer Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4021; RLW2008(4)Raj3313
Prakash Tatia, J.1. These two separate appeals have been preferred, one D.B.Criminal Appeal No. 826/04 by appellants Bharti Singh and Angrej Singh both sons of Jagmal Singh and another D.B.Criminal Appeal No. 898/04 by Mahaveer Prasad son of Narayan Ram, as all the three appellants have been convicted by the court of Addl Sessions Judge (Fast Tract) No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 97/2003 under Section 302/34 and under Section 450, IPC. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and awarded fine of Rs. 1000/- each and under Section 450, IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 700/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused-appellants have been sentenced to further undergo four months' and one month's imprisonment respectively. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 25.6.2002 at 6.52 p.m., S.H.O., Sadar Police Station, Bikaner received a telephonic message from Constable Sardar Singh who wa...
Raghu Nandan Sharma Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj160; RLW2008(3)Raj2566
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicant in the instant application seeks appointment of independent arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (for short `1996 Act').2. The applicant (for short `RN') and respondent No. 1 (for short `VK') are real brothers and beneficiary of will drawn by their father Durga Narayan Sharma on October 21, 2003. During his life time Durga Narayan Sharma made a declaration on October 15, 2005 that if any dispute in regard to will arises the same shall be decided by Sole Arbitrator Shri U.N. Bhandari, Senior Advocate, whose decision would be final and binding.3. It may also be noticed that respondents No. 2 and 3 were declared the executors of the will who also put their signatures on the will as attestting witnesses.4. After the death of Durga Narayan Sharma, RN served a notice on October 8, 2006 to the respondent No. 2 asking for execution of will. Respondents No. 2 and 3 in turn issued notice to VK but he did not favourabl...
Laxman Singh and ors. Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3153
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.01.2007 (Annex.5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deogarh (Rajsamand) in Civil Suit No. 2/2004 rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement as moved by the defendants-petitioners. 2. Briefly put, the background facts and relevant aspect are that the plaintiff Kishan Singh (respondent No. 2) and the defendant No. 1 Laxman Singh (petitioner No. 1) are bothers; the defendant No. 2 Deepak (petitioner No. 3) is the son of defendant No. 1; and the defendant No. 3 Smt.Kamla (petitioner No. 2) is the wife of the defendant No. 1. By way of the present suit, as filed on 01.05.2004 against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff has sought perpetual injunction with the averments, inter alia, that a 30' x 45' plot of land as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint is of his ownership and has been in his possession ever since it was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 30.11....
Cit Vs. Sh Ram Dev Kumar Chitlangia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Raj)462
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the revenue, is against the judgment of learned Tribunal dated 09.01.2004. By the said judgment, the learned Tribunal decided four appeals; two by the assessee, and two by the revenue, relating to assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Out of them, the present appeal relates to Appeal No. 372, decided by the learned Tribunal, being appeal by the revenue, relating to the assessment year 1995-96. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 23.05.2006, by framing following substantial questions of law: I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was right in holding the NRI gifts as genuine ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to prove the capacity of the donor who is stranger as gift was not made on any social occasion? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was right in confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shiv Ratan Advertisers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: 2008[12]STR690; [2009]19STT446
ORDER1. The controversy involved in the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 23-4-2008 passed in Union of India v. Aakar Advertising being Central Excise Appeals No. 4/2005 and 25/2005 : 2008 (11) S.T.R. 5 (Raj.) wherein it has been held that the authority including the Tribunal have no jurisdiction to reduce the penalty below the minimum prescribed.2. Accordingly, this appeal is also decided on the same lines holding that the authorities below cannot reduce the penalty below the minimum, and matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner to be decided afresh the amount of penalty to be imposed under Section 76 between the minimum and maximum permissible limits....
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Oil Industries and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3468
M.C. Bhagwati, J.1. This order governs an adjudication of criminal appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 22.5.1995 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malpura Distt. Tonk whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondents namely Ratan Lal S/o Ramswaroop Vijay, Shambhoodayal S/o Bajranglal, Prabhudayal S/o Ramgopal, Rakesh Kumar S/o Satyanarain, Nathulal S/o Ramavatar and Ashok Oil Industries through Ratanlal S/o Ramswaroop Vijay in the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act 1954).2. The nub of the appellant's story is that on 29.6.1991, PW.1 Trilok Chand Jain, Food Inspector of District Tonk reached at about 1.30 PM at Ashok Oil Industries situated at Adarsh Nagar, Malpura where the accused -respondent Ratanlal S/o Ramswaroop was found present as seller. The complainant found 20 tins of Mustard oil lying inside the oil industry. Having suspected the oil being adulter...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj394
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the orders dated 21.8.1996, 16.10,1998 and 17.4.2000 whereby and whereunder the petitioner's request for grant of disability pension was declined. Prayer of the petitioner is to seek disability pension w.e.f. 8.3.1986 along with interest and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. It is contended that the petitioner was enrolled in Army on 24.12.1994 in medical category 'A' as he was fully fit and did not suffer from any disease. The petitioner was thereafter invalided'from services w.e.f. 7.3.1996, after determining him in medical category 'E' due to Affective Psychosis with 40% disability. Petitioner's disability pension claim was rejected firstly vide order dated 21.8.1996 on the ground that the petitioner's disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated due to military services. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order, but the appeal thereupon was also rejected. Petitioner thereafter preferre...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »