Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1967Raj190; 1967CriLJ1053
ORDERB.P. Beri, J. 1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pali, dated 6th July, 1966, who maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicants under Sections 295 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The circumstances leading up to the present application for revision briefly stated are these: On 7th April, 1964 some ladies of Jetaran went for worship to the temple of Mataji outside Mertji Darwaja near Jagannathji-ki-Bavri, Jetaran. To their suprise they did not find the idols in the temple and even the Chabutra on which the idols stood and the steps leading to the Chabutra were found damaged. On 8th April, 1964 some Hindu residents of Jetaran made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jetaran that in the said temple there were idols of Seetlamataji, Achparaji, Bodarji and others and these idols were removed dishonestly from the Chabutra by some Musalmans which has occasioned an injury t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : III(2004)ACC810; AIR2005Raj124; RLW2004(4)Raj2074
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This first appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1987 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota, dismissed the civil suit No. 50/1983.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit on 2nd April 1983, for recovery of Rs. 18,500/- with the averments that in compliance of the orders of the plaintiffs, M/s Bhatia Stones Company, Ramganjmandi, district kota, booked polished stones worth Rs. 990.81 with the defendant Railway, vide Railway Receipt No. 334787 on 7.4.1980. The delivery of the goods was to be given to the plaintiffs at Bombay, but the same were not delivered by the defendants. The plaintiffs informed the defendants vide letters dated 1.6.1980 and 17.7.1980 and thereafter served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 25.8.1980 vide registered post, which was received but with no result. The plaintiffs prayed for decree of the suit amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. (3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLC456
R. Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was detained by order dated 20th June, 2001 made by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer Under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. This order has been made by recording satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on number or grounds.3. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner has been served with grounds of detention dated 22.6.2001 only but the original order of detention dated 20th June, 2001 and order of confirmation of detention order dated 26th June, 2001, were not served on the detenu at all and order of confirmation has been passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the detenu to make a representation before the State Government or the Board. In connection with this it was submitted by the petitioner that in the meeting of advisory Board the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj764; 2006(1)WLC666
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. All these appeals raise common question of law as to whether Insurance Companies, the appellants herein, are liable only to the extent of statutory liability fixed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act of 1939) or their liability is unlimited.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in the Schedule of premium under the Heading 'liability to public risk', it was indicated to be Rs. 240/-. The stand in essence, therefore, is that when any extra premium is not paid for any enhanced liability, the statutorily liability fixed for Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 1,5Q,000/- was maximum that could have been awarded, and nothing beyond it. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and Ors. : AIR2004SC1581 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya and Ors. : [2002]1SCR298 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal and Ors. : AIR1999SC623 ], New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. N.M. Annakutty and Ors. 1997 (2) ACJ 1121, Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN419
Navin Chander Sharma, J.1. Writ Petitioner M/s Ferro Concrete Construction (India) Private Limited (for short, here in after, petitioner company), by this writ petition, accuses the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) and the Executive Engineer (Civil), Construction Division No. II, Mahi Hydel Project of distributing state largesse, in the form of giving contract to respondent No. 4 M/s. Dhorajia Construction Company for excavation and slope treatment work of D/S side in Tail Pool and. Tail Pace Channel of Power House-H at Lilwani, Banswara, arbitrarily, unfairly, unreasonably and against public interest. By a Notice No. 13/86-87, dated 23rd March, 1987, published in Rajasthan Patrika on 31st March, 1987, the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Bagidora invited tenders from experienced firms of repute who had executed similar type of work previously for the aforesaid work The petitioner-company, respondent No. 4 and respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(142)ELT289(Raj); 2003(1)WLN332
ORDERN.N. Mathur, JJ. - 1. This reference petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is at the instance of the department seeking reference of the following question of law arising from the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 6-12-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 438 (Tribunal)] :- 'Whether the explosive used for blasting of mines for obtaining ores and not in the manufacture of Zinc, are eligible for exemption under Notification No.191/87, dated 4-8-1987?'2. The respondent Hindustan Zinc Ltd. is a public undertaking. The Company mines Zinc and Lead ore from its own mines at Rajpura, Maton and Zawar. The Company was granted L-6 licence to obtain goods falling under Chapters 28, 29, 36 and 38 without payment of duty for use in the manufacture of Zinc and Lead concentrate in terms of Notification No. 191/87, dated 4-8-1987. The said notification reads as follows :-'Exemption to goods falling within Chapters 28,29,36 and 38[Add on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj389
Harbans Lal, J.1. These writ petitions, which have been filed by way of public interest litigation, highlight issues of grave environmental and ecological degradation due to large scale illegal, un-authorised, un-scientific and un-systematic mining activities being undertaken in violation of the provisions of various enactments, rules framed and notifications issued thereunder, and the orders of the Supreme Court and this court. Some of the petitioners have made a grievance with regard to the operation of the stone crushers and use of explosive substances for winning the minerals from the mines on the ground that they are causing air and nose pollution. Since these writ petitions pertain to and address the common issues, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7544/03 has been filed by one Ashwani Chobisa, who is a practicing lawyer, in the Rajasthan High Court and claims himself to be a public spirited and keenly interested...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1997Raj250
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This writ petition and the other eleven writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule, raise the common controversies, namely (i) the validity of Section 19 (L) read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; (ii) the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the respective Chief Executive Officer, by which the petitioners were declared disqualified; and (iii) the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer to hold an enquiry in the matter of declaring a Panch or a Member of the Panchayat Raj Institution to continue as the Sarpanch as he has incurred the disqualification on account of birth of an additional child in the family raising the number of the children to more than two. As all these writ petitions involve the common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner was declared elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Banera (district Bhilwara) on 4-2-95. While he was acting as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(2)WLC672; 1997(1)WLN682
B.R. Arora, J.1. This writ petition and the other eleven writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule raise the common controversies, namely, (i) the validity of Sections 19(L) read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; (ii) the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the respective Chief Executive Officer, by which the petitioners were declared disqualified; and (iii) the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer to hold an enquiry in the matter of declaring a Panch of a Member of the Panchayat Raj Institution to continue as the Sarpanch as he has incurred the disqualification on account of birth of an additional child in the family raising the number of the children to more than two. As all these writ petitions involve the common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner was declared elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baner (district Bhilwara) on 4.2.95. While he was acting as the Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(1)WLN194
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. These appeals are brought against the common judgment of the learned District judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Cases No. 189/1988, 190/1988 and 191/1988, and arise from a contract between the parties. Hence, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts leading these appeals are as follows. The Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation (for short the Corporation') a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, after negotiations vide its letter dated June 7, 1982, awarded a contract to M/s G.S. Atwal & Co. (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Contractor') for raising the mineral 'dolomite'/rockphosphate in their leased are a known as 'Kanpur Mines' in Kolin project in Udaipur District, at the following rates:------------------------------------------------------------------------------Description of work. Quantity Rate per cub.m.---------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!