Rajasthan Court September 2009 Judgments
The State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Smt. Rekha Mahawar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3201
ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal by the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Jaipur and Senior Medical Officer, Incharge, Upgraded Primary Health Centre, Jhadol, Dist. Udaipur has been filed against the claimants and owner of the vehicle against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer deciding the claim petition No. 388/2006 (340/2006) on 8.9.2008 in respect of an accident which took place on 18.6.2005 at 9.30 a.m. at Jhadol, Dist. Udaipur. Since the claimants were residing at Ajmer, in accordance with the provisions of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, they could file claim petition at the place of their residence besides the place where the accident took place and therefore, they preferred to file said claim petition before the learned MACT, Ajmer and the said claim petition came to be decided by the learned Tribnal on 8.9.2008 awarding a sum of Rs. 1 1,73,000/- in favour of the claimant for the death of one person...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ793
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By filing this criminal appeal under Section 374, Cr. P.C. the accused appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4-10-1991 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Beawar (Rajasthan) (for short 'the learned trial Court') in Sessions case No. 59/88, by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under:Under Section 307, IPC:Five years RI and Rs. 500/- fine. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo six months' RI.Under Section 326, IPC:Four years RI and Rs. 500/- fine. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo six months' RI.Under Section 324, IPC:One year RI and Rs. 200/- fine. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo two months RI.Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the case as set up by the prosecution are that on 2-9-1988 one Kanchan lodged a report at P. S. Beawar City alleging therein that she resides in Debgali and on the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanne Singh Rathore Vs. Gram Panchayat and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN522
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved of the order dated 28.08.2008 in Suit No. 29/2001 (30/2007) Dhanne Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Ors. pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Churu. 2. By the impugned order dated 28.08.2008, the learned trial court deleted the name of Shri Vijendra Singh, Advocate from the list of witnesses produced by the plaintiff in support of his case in the said suit.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff relying upon the provisions of Sections 30, 31 and Order 16 Rule 10 and 12 and judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Uchhab Kanwar wife of Shri Bhanwar Singh v. LRs of Shri Rameshwaroop Singh son of Ganesh Lal Ahuja and two Ors. RLW 1995(1) (Raj.) 106 submitted that the said witness Vijendra Singh was served with summon after such list of witnesses was filed by the plaintiff and after service of summon, a copy of which is produced as Annexure 4 with the writ petition, he could not cl...
Tag this Judgment!Lali (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Ramesh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN603
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants, inter alia seeking enhancement of the compensation.2. The necessary facts are that on the fateful day the deceased Gola was travelling in the Truck No. RJB-6363 as a labourer. While the truck was going, the other truck No. GJ-17 T-3969 which was coming from towards Banswara dashed against the Truck No. 6363 on the culvert, as a result of which the deceased died. The deceased was claimed to be earning Rs. 2000/- per month, by working as manual labourer, and by agriculture, and thus Rs. 8,40,000/- have been claimed by way of loss of income. Other amounts have been claimed under different heads like mental pain and agony, loss of expectation of life, and so on, and a total sum of Rs. 15,62,000/- has been claimed. The claim was constested.3. The learned trial Court framed four issues. First being regarding negligence, the issue No. 2 was about quantum of compensation, issue No. 3 was about liability of the defendants, and issue ...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ629
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The accused appellant Yogesh filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated July 29, 2006 of Addl. Sessions Judge, No. l Bundi in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2006 whereby the accused appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 366 IPC to undergo 10 Years RI with fine of Rs. 500, in default of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of three months, under Section 366 A to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of , fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months, under Section 368 IPC to undergo Ten Years RI and fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of 3 months, under Section 372 IPC, to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 500, in default of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months and under Section 376 IPC to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 500, in default to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months and under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Pushp Raj Vs. Manga Ram @ Mangilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN594
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellant-plaintiff is challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.05.1992 passed by the District Judge, Balotra in Civil Appeal No. 10/87, whereby, the learned first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 05.08.1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Balotra in Civil Suit No. 20/83 and dismissed the suit with cost.2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the appellant-plaintiff before the Civil Judge, Barmer (Camp Balotra), in which, it is stated that he is adopted son of late Keshari Mal Oswal who died on 19.06.1981 and, during his life-time, respondent Manga Ram @ Mangilal executed an agreement to sell his share of khatedari land and, for the same, sale consideration of Rs. 7,000/-was fixed, out of which, Rs. 6,000/- were paid by late Kesharimal on 21.12.1979 and rest of the amount i.e., Rs. 1,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of regi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Fazal Vs. S.J. Marble Mines and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj140
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this revision petition, the petitioner is challenging Order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Parbatsar, whereby, the said Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant Under Order VII Rule 11, read with Section 151, C.P.C. in Civil Original Suit No. 11/2009 pending before the Addl. District Judge, Parbatsar.2. According to brief facts of the case, the respondent-plaintiffs preferred suit for declaration and permanent injunction, in which, the plaintiffs prayed that Order dated 13.2.2009 passed by the Mining Engineer, Makrana in exercise of powers conferred under Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 may be quashed. After filing aforesaid civil suit, the respondent-plaintiffs also preferred a revision petition before the State Government viz., Deputy Secretary, Mines under Rule 47 of the Rules of 1986 against the same order. That revision petition was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary, Mines vide Order dated 2.3....
Tag this Judgment!Makkhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ301; RLW2010(1)Raj654
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. By this instant writ petition for Habeas Corpus filed under Article 226 of the. Constitution of India, petitioner Makkhan Singh, cousin brother of accused-convict Gyan Singh, has sought remedy for the release of convict from the Central Jail, Ganga Nagar by giving benefit of remission, as prayed for in the memo of petition.2. Facts leading to this petition are that convict-Gyan Singh was held guilty for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo six months S. I. along with other offences by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganga-nagar on 12.7.04 in Sessions Case No. 9/04. He preferred appeal before this Court in which his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. was altered to that of Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. in D. B. Cr, Appeal No. 757/04 decided on 13-5-09 and was sentenced to seven years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo six months'...
Tag this Judgment!Dimple Agarwal (Smt.) Vs. Subhash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN570
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned counsels.2. By this transfer application, the petitioner-wife has prayed for transfer of proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in case No. 65/2008 (Subhash v. Smt. Dimple) from the Court of leaned Addl. District Judge, Bali-camp-Sumerpur to the Court of learned District Judge, Sirohi.3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since proceedings under Section 498A I.P.C. are already pending in Pindwara, District Sirohi, therefore, he has otherwise to attend those proceedings at Pindwara and he can attend these proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Sirohi and, therefore, the aforesaid case may be transferred to Sirohi as prayed by the petitioner-wife.4. In view of this, this transfer application is allowed and the case No. 65/2008 Subhash v. Dimple pending in the Court of leaned ADJ Bali-camp-Sumerpur is directed to be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Sirohi. No order as to costs.5. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Kora Devi and ors. Vs. Harbansh Kaur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj698
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellants are challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar in Civil Appeal No. 9/08, whereby, the learned first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Raisinghnagar in Civil Original Suit No. 271/93.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiffs filed civil suit for specific performance, in which, it is stated that an agreement for sale was executed by Ishwardas, father of appellants on 20.1.1977 for sale of six and a half bigha land situated in Sq. No. 24, at Chak 37 NP upon which khatedari rights were also obtained by him after allotment. The said agreement was executed by late Ishwar Das for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and possession of the land was transferred to the respondents and part payment of Rs. 17,000/- was made on the date of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »