Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2295; 2005(4)WLC134
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner married with one Sharda Devi on 16th May, 1987 as per Hindu Rites. Out of the wedlock, a daughter Seemaborn to the petitioner. The petitioner's wife Sharda Devi died on 11th May, 1993. The petitioner, thereafter, married to one Indra on 13th May, 1994. Out of this wedlock, two sons born to the petitioner. Smt. Indra died on 16th Oct. 1997. Therefore, by two marriage, the petitioner got three children. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the death of second wife of the petitioner, the petitioner contracted third marriage but there is no child from that wedlock.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner as per Sub- clause (1) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1994), a person, who has more than two children and with a birth of any child after 27th Nov., 1995 is a disqua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj1; 2006(1)WLC618
Ashok Parihar, J.1. This is yet another unfortunate case where a person has to seek protection of this Court against inaction and indifferent casual approach of the authorities concerned.2. While the petitioner serving as Additional District Magistrate (In-charge of Law & Order), Jaipur City, Jaipur, there has been an encounter between the police and militants of Khalistan Liberation Force, an internationally banned group of terrorists, in the Model Town area of Jagatpura, Jaipur in the night of 25th/26th of February, 1995. One terrorist - Navneet Singh Kandia - was killed and other terrorists managed to escape from the spot. When the petitioner came to know about the incident he rushed to the spot immediately and supervised the search operation in which an empty leather briefcase was traced containing one car key with a paper slip attached thereto. Petitioner, at his own initiative, started thorough investigation of Transport Department records and traced out the Head-quarters of inte...
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 : 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 : 2007CriLJ2009
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24-9-2000 whereby the State Government has withdrawn its earlier letter dated 28-10-1998 wherein the State had given the benefit of parole, Open Camp Jail and Remission to the prisoners convicted under NDPS Act and TADA Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dated 30-11-2002, the Judge, Designated Court, TADA, Ajmer had convicted the appellant under Section 6(1) of TADA under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 9-B(1) B and (vii) and under Section 9-C of the Explosive Act and had sentenced him for different terms of imprisonment, the maximum being 5 years of R.I. Till 16-7-2006, the petitioner has undergone an incarceration of 4 years and 23 days. According to the petitioner vide letter dated 28-10-1998, the benefit of remission, parole & Open Camp Jail was extended to prisoners convicted under NDPS Act and TADA Act. However, vide order dated 29-4-2000, the said letter was revoked. Hence the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN88
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner-convicted prisoner under the T.A.D.A. Act-sought his release on parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Rules of 1958' for short). But, the same has been denied to him. Hence this petition before this Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dt. 30.11.2002 the Judge, Designated Court, T.A.D.A., Ajmer had convicted the appellant under Section 6(1) of T.A.D.A., under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 9-B(1)B and (vii) and under Section 9-C of the Explosive Act and had sentenced him for different terms of imprisonment, the maximum being 5 years of R.I. Till 16.07.2006, the petitioner has undergone an incarceration of 4 years and 23 days. According to the petitioner vide letter dt. 28.10.1998, the benefit of Remission, Parole and Open Camp Jail was extended to prisoners convicted under N.D.P.S. Act and T.A.D.A. Act. However, vide order dt. 29.04....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(3)Raj2602
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Dispute in this matter pertains to allotment of a retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Halena in District Bharatpur located on National Highway No. 11. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to the respondents directing them to cancel the candidature of respondent No. 3 Smt. Sadhana Dagur and not to issue Letter of Intent to her and instead issue such Letter of Intent to the petitioner Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi who was placed at serial number 2 in the select panel. An additional prayer has been made that if in the meantime, the Letter of Intent is issued to the non petitioner No. 3 the same be quashed and set aside.2. Factual matrix of the case is that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') a Government of India undertaking, published an advertisement in Rajasthan Patrika on 2nd January, 2004 inviting applications for allotment of 243 Retail Outlets in the State of Rajasthan. Applications were also...
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 : (2007)212CTR(Raj)244
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in IT Appeal No. 455/2000. The appellant assessee was a consignment agent for supply of explosive goods to I.C.I. India Limited in Rajasthan. In view of the information received, a survey under Section 133A was carried out in the case of Pooja Roadlines, Udaipur and some bill books were impounded under Section 131 of the Act. On scrutiny of the bill books of M/s Pooja Roadlines, it was noticed that the vans (motor vehicles) owned by the assessee had been used for transportation of goods to various places. On examination, it was found that the assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s India Explosives Ltd. for supplying trading items of the principal company at Udaipur. The vans owned by the assessee were used for getting goods from Udaipur to Gomia in Bihar. The vans so used for delivering goods were to be unloaded at Udaipur and empty vans we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj397
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The State of Rajasthan has come up in writ petition against the order dated 27.6.1998 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in an appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') thereby reversing the order dated 24.11.1997 passed by the District Collector under Section 6A of the said Act confiscating 240 Gas Cylinders.3. Factual matrix of the case is that the District Supply Officer received certain complaints against M/s. Tej Enterprises, having retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) for distribution of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) in the allotted area. These complaints were with regard to the black marketing of gas cylinders and quantity of gas contained in the gas cylinders being lesser than the prescribed quantity is in violation of conditions of the license and the provisions of the Rajasthan Pe...
Tag this Judgment!