Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985(2)WLN189
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This writ petition and other writ petitions, a list of which is annexed as Schedule 'A' to this order, which are being disposed of by this order, raise a common question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to proportionate reduction in the minimum charges payable by them for the electric energy supplied to them in the event of curtailment of the supply of the electric energy to them on account of imposition of the power cut.2. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity Board') has been constituted under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity (Supply) Act'. The Electricity Board undertakes the generation and supply of electricity to the various consumers in Rajasthan and in the exercise of its powers, it is governed by the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act. Under 26 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, the Electricity Board, in respect of the whole Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3959; 1998(1)WLN671
ORDERAmaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 28th March, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Revision No. 26-A/96, whereby the order dated 3rd June, 1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Original Case No. 22/95 under Section 133, Cr.P.C. was upheld.3. The facts of the case may be summarised as below :-On 2nd June, 1995, an application signed by Saleem and Ors. was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu. In this application, it was mentioned that the applicant's house was situated near Ramgarhia Darwaaja and about 9 ft.wide portion of the applicant's house was beyond the building line prescribed under Section 165 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and the applicant had vacated that portion of his house, it was also stated in the application that adjacent to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2015; 1996(1)WLC413
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The appellant-Shabbir Mohammad was prosecuted in case FIR No.8/89 of Police Station, Peesangan, District Ajmer for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B IPC with the allegations that he, in' conspiracy with some others (since acquitted), had caused fatal burn injuries on the person of his wife Abida (deceased). He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 124/89. One of the documents filed by the prosecution in support of its case was the post mortem report prepared by the doctor, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The appellant was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the said post mortem report and, since he did not dispute the genuineness thereof, it was admitted in evidence as Ex.P. 10 under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) and, thereupon, the prosecution did not produce the doctor concerned as a witness in the Court. The learned Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005ACJ211; 2004WLC(Raj)UC706
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is by the insurance company to limit its liability towards third party to indemnify the insured within the precincts of the statutory liability fixed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act of 1939'), which was in force at the time the accident in question had taken place.2. This is the second time in this case the insurance company is before this court.3. The accident in question took place on 20.9.1984 resulting in the death of one Prabhu Ram whose legal representatives are respondent Nos. 1 to 9. The respondent No. 10 is driver and the respondent No. 11 is owner of the vehicle.4. The Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 119 of 1984 was lodged by the claimants and by award dated 27.4.1988, a sum of Rs. 1,04,000 was determined as compensation payable to the claimants which the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay to the dependants/legal representatives of the deceased, Prabhu Ram. That part of the award i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2008ACJ1414
Manak Mohta, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in M.A.C.T. Claim Case No. 75 of 1996 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellants' son, Milkiyat Singh, was cleaner on truck No. RJ 13-G 1755 and the said truck was going to Ambala (Punjab) being driven by the driver, one Sukhveer Singh. On 4.9.1995, when the truck reached at village Ghinola (Punjab), at that time another truck No. RRC 7166 also reached there, which was being driven by Kulvindra Singh, respondent No. 1. Both the trucks stayed there, tyre of truck No. RRC 7166 was to be replaced. Kulvindra Singh, his cleaner and Milkiyat Singh started to replace the tyre of the back wheel of truck No. RRC 7166. When they were replacing the tyre, the jack of the truck ( slipped as the land was wet due to rain, as a result of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002]258ITR548(Raj); 2002(3)WLN553; 2002(3)WLN553
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated July 27, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, directing the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, to grant registration to the applicant-society under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. This appeal has been admitted by the order of this court dated July 24, 2001, on the following substantial question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that on the proper construction of aims and objects of the assessee-association as disclosed in its constitution fall within the purview of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act so as to entitle the assessee-society to registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act ?' 3. The respondent-assessee is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, in the name of 'Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN160
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner insurance company seeks to challenge the order dt. 20.03.2004 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Annex.-3) to the writ petition) whereby the learned Permanent Lok Adalat directed the petitioner insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 5,17,800/- with a further direction to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the claim amount of Rs. 2,48,450/- with effect from 21.02.2002 till realization.2. According to facts of the case, respondent No. 1 is involved in the business of old paper-raddi and bottles etc. and the said firm obtained shopkeepers' insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the petitioner insurance company. The policy was valid for the period commencing from 08.11.2001 to 07.11.2002. According to the petitioner, the said policy was issued in the name of respondent No. 1 with regard to stock-in-trade stored in shop having Class-A construction, said to be situated near New Sabji Mandi, Bhadwasiya Road, J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1995; RLW2003(2)Raj752; 2003(2)WLC461; 2003(1)WLN467
Joshi, J. 1. The instant Criminal Revision No. 1016 is against the order of the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur passed on 26.10.2002 in Sessions Case No. 59/2000. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge had ordered to frame charges against the accused-persons under Section 285, 286, 304 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are that the Station House Officer, Surajpole, Udaipur got a Parcha Bayan recorded on 20.11.1999 that Macsen Laboratories situated at Tekri, Udaipur has caught fire. Before he reached the said laboratory, the fire had already been extinguished. He found the body of a burnt person in a room of the said laboratory. The said labourer was working at Distillator machine. The deceased Naval Ram Gameti and Lalooram had put the Toluene oil in the machine and there were toluene fumes which are inflammable. The labourer went inside the room to make the switch off of the machine and died inside the room. As per site report,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(1)WLN431
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated September 16, 1980 the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh convicted the accused Jagdish Chandra Under Sections 302, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment of the first count and three years' rigorous imprisonment on the second count. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused has come-up in appeal to challenge his conviction.2. Abdul Rahim the deceased victim in the case - was a resident of Bassi P.S. Vijaypur district Chittorgarh. The accused is, also a resident of the same town. He had, however, migrated to Chittorgarh, but at times used to come to Bassi. When the accused was at Bassi, he used to live in a shop shown by digit '8' in site plan Ex. P 3. At about 8.30 a.m on May 12, 1979, PW 2 Rajmal Teli was taking his bullock-cart loaded with grass-bundles to his house. The cart was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2493
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. Both these revision petitions are directed against the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in 24-2-94, allowing the revision application of the complainant by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, directed framing of charges against the applicant in each of these revisions.2. Facts giving rise to these petitions, stated briefly are that a First Information Report was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, by which respondent No. 2, who alleged that he got himself admitted to the Jodhpur Hospital and Research Centre, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, for treatment of his ailment of bleeding piles. During the course of his treatment he disclosed that he is a patient of diabetes and, should, accordingly be treated. On 21-4-92, he developed some pain in his back and was, therefore, referred to Dr. Narender Singh Yadav, applicant in Revision Petition No. 111 /94, as he was working in the orthopacdic Department of the Hosp...
Tag this Judgment!