Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996ACJ736; 1996(2)WLC146
B.R. Arora, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment/award dated 14.1.1987 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalore, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal dismissed both the claim petitions filed by the appellants-claimants on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.11.1983 Nathu Rarn, the driver of the Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation, at about 4.30 p.m. parked the bus No. RRM 1473 at the Bus Stand, Jalore. The bus was to commence its journey to Bhinmal. The booking of this bus started. The passengers bought the tickets from the booking window and after buying the tickets, boarded the bus. Rukmani w/o Ram Chandra alias Ram Kishan, Indra d/o Ram Chandra, Manju d/o Kesri Mal, Bajrang s/o Ram Chandra, Bhanwari d/o Misri Mal and other passengers boarded the bus after buying the tickets. Defendant No. 5, Banshi Lal, also boarded the bus. He was carrying one big ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997ACJ304; AIR1996Raj126; 1996(1)WLN152
Arun Madan, J.1. The appellant-InsuranceCompany has preferred this appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), againstthe Award, dated 29th January, 1994, passedby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behrodin Civil Miscellaneous (MAC) Case No. 130/92 (34/90) whereby an Award of Rupees5,96,000/- was passed in favour of claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Aggrieved by the saidAward the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that on 30th September, 1989 at about 7.00 p.m. late Pareesh Marya was driving his Maruti Van bearing Registration No. DAJ 3013 on Behrod-Sahjahanpur road. A Truck bearing Registration No. DIG 3144 was parked in a stationary position on the national highway near Behrod 1 km. ahead of Neemrana turn. Instead of parking the truck on the footpath its driver had parked the same on the road. Since the parking lights of the truck were not on at that time and also on account of darkness the...
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 : AIR1998Raj28; 1997(3)WLC411; 1997(2)WLN46
B.R. Arora, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Saroj Chotiya, by this writ petition, has challenged (i) the validity of Section 26(xiv) and its proviso (e) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, which provide general disqualification for the person to be elected as a Member, who has more than two children; and (ii) the legality and correctness of the order dated 13-1-97 (Annexure 4) by which the petitioner was put under suspension.2. Petitioner Smt. Saroj Chotiya, on 2X-9-95, was declared elected as a Member of the Municipal Board, Ratangarh from Ward No. 12. On 9-12-95 she gave birth to the third child. On 30-11-96, a notice under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act (for short, 'the Act') was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary, Local-Self Government, by which she was asked to explain why she should not be removed from the post of the Member of the Board as she has incurred the disqualification under Section 26 of the Act by giving birth to the third child. She filed reply to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3131; 1997WLC(Raj)UC352
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr. P.C) has been filed against the order dated 28-3-97 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, cum- Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 91/96.2. Briefly stated, for the disposal of the present petition, the facts giving rise to this petition are that Hazari Ram resident of Chak 19 B. D. lodged FIR No. 129/95 at the Police Station, Khajuwala, District Bikaner on 25-10-95 at 12.30 p.m. reporting at about 7.30 a.m. that he had gone to the field of his son-in-laws Heera Lal and Bhagirath etc. whereat mustard was to be sown with the tractor of Maniram Bishnoi. The accused Ram Kumar resident of Chak 3 B. D. accompanied by his co-accused persons, came armed with a D.B.B.L. who was exclaiming that Randhir Singh and Jagdish should remain there and that he would kill both of them with his gun. He (info...
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!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 : 2000(4)WLC605; 2000WLC(Raj)UC359
Madan, J. (1). The petitioner has challenged the impugned sentence on the ground only confined to its inadequacy in this revision petition, Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying therein for awarding deterrent sentence to the respondent (accused) Sangram Singh, who was convicted Under Sections. 457, 458, 323 & 324 IPC but sentenced to undergo four months simple imprisonment under each count and was imposed with fine of Rs. 200/- each Under Section 457 & -158 IPC, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui (District Dausa) under Judgment dated 4.7.96 in Criminal Case No. 215/96 arising out of FIR No. 173/95 lodged on 8.5.1995 at Police Station Bandikui by complainant (petitioner) herein. The accused-respondent Sangram Singh who at the time of incident was duly armed with axe is alleged to have intruded into complainant's house at about 1 O'clock in the midnight thereof, whereupon his mother and sister who were sleeping in the chowk got awaken, and res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN95
B.J. Shethna, J.1. It is stated in this present petition by the petitioner that on 5.5.1999 when the van of respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand Jhanwar carrying explosive substance in a huge quantity being unloaded in 'Nohra' of respondent No.2, at that time due to explosion two persons, Bheru and Sattar Khan received serious injuries. Out of them Bheru later on sccumbed to the injuries. The information about this incident was received by Shahpura, Police Station and on receiving the said information,' ASI Aziz Mohd. reached the place of incident and lodged FIR No. 107/99 with Shahpura Police Station for the offences punishable Under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and also Under Sections 286, 337, 338 IPC. However, SHO Madan Dan Singh investigated the case and filed challan Under Section 9B of the Explosive Act, 1884 against respondents No.2 and 3 accused and also for the offence Under Sections 286, 337, 338 and 304A IPC Accordingly, the learned Trial Magistrate took co...
Tag this Judgment!