Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009ACJ858
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment dated 26.3.1991, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Claim Case No. 40 of 1989.2. Claimants-appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 11,70,000 stating the fact that on 20.11.1988 at about 5 p.m., when Rajendra Kumar was near Telephone Exchange building and moving towards Padampur, then jeep bearing No. RSC 9170 driven by Devilal, caused accident, resulting in death of Rajendra Kumar. It was urged that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Devilal.3. Reply was filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Tribunal, denying their liabilities.4. It is contended that authorised driver of the jeep involved in the accident was Diwan Chand but jeep was unauthorisedly driven by Devilal, as nobody authorised Devilal to drive the said jeep. It was further contended that the owner of the jeep is only Panchayat Samiti and not the government. It was lastly conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009ACJ1019
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.12.1992 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in Claim Case No. 3 of 1989, the claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal.2. A claim petition was filed by the claimants contending that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. 7435, car No. GBQ 966 was dashed, resulting in death of car driver Kalu Miya. The dependants of Kalu Miya maintained claim application, claiming Rs. 3,94,000. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,15,000 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent in favour of the claimants, but out of the total claim allowed in favour of the claimants, the liability of the insurance company was maintained to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 and remaining liability was fastened on the owner of the truck and ors.3. Assailing the judgment of the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the appellants pressed only one issue which is pertaining to the liability of the insurance c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2008(1)WLN63
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1.This appeal has been preferred to challenge the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara dt. 17.02.1993.2. The claimants non-appellants preferred claim petition, stating that on 07.11.1986, at about 5.00 p.m., Kanji and Dharia were going on bicycle to village Miya-ka-Parla. On the way at Ghatol Anandpuri road, a Bus bearing No. RJB 2772 hit bicycle, due to which Kanji and Dharia fell down and sustained injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. Dharia died in the hospital, whereas Kanji sustained fracture. Due to death of Dharia, claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was claimed towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- were claimed towards mental agony to the parents of Dharia and Rs. 10,000/- for wife.3. In reply to the claim petition, Insurance Company disputed the income of Dharia, apart from disputing the issuance of the cover note. The Insurance Company disp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2426
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner has raised questions of law in these revision petitions that (i) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case supply of explosives by the petitioner to his contractor for using the same by the contractor in petitioner's mining operation in mining area of the petitioner can be treated to be a sale within the meaning of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) and (ii) if answer to question No. (i) referred above is affirmative and it is held that aforesaid supply of explosives is a sale whether such sale is not taxable being subsequent sale within the State of the goods on which tax on first point has already paid and (iii) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the explosives for the purpose of blasting in the petitioner's mine could not have been purchased at concessional rates against declaration form ST17. -3The petitioner is a company duly registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj990
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 10.7.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi whereby he was convicted for offence under Section 5 of the. Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment of five years with a fine of Rs. 500/- with the stipulation that in the event of default for making payment of fine, he shall have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. A first information report was lodged by one Bherulal, Constable with Police Station Bundi. In the report, it was alleged that on 11.7.1984 while the said Constable was on duty on the bus stand of Bundi at 8.30, pm the appellant was found with jute bag (Katta) near the bus which was going to Nainwa. On enquiry, he told his name to be Bheru Singh and when checked, the bag was found containing capsules of gelatin. Another Sipoy Shambu Kishore, also in the meantime approached there and both of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj447
Govind Mathur, J.1. All these petitions for writ raise common legal question, thus, 1 propose to decide all these cases by one common judgment.2. To regulate recruitment and other service conditions in the Rajasthan Prabodhak Service, the Government of Rajasthan, while exercising powers conferred by Section 102 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, enacted the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2008'). An intention to fill in the existing vacancies of Prabodhaks was notified by the Government of Rajasthan on 31.5.2008. Accordingly, the process of recruitment was initiated in various Districts of the State. The eligibility for appointment as Prabodhaks under the rules of 2008 is as follows:Senior Secondary School certificate or intermediate or its equivalent, with Diploma or certificate in basic teachers training of a duration of not less than two years of Diploma or certificate in elementary teachers, training of a dura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2376; RLW2010(1)Raj449
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These four criminal appeals, on behalf of accused-appellants, and one criminal leave to appeal, on behalf of the State, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2000, passed by the Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Mansingh Death case), Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 8/98, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The trial Court, vide its impugned order, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:Accused Under ImprisonmentSection1. Abdul Mateen 14 of the To undergo 5 years RIForeigners and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;Act, 1946 in default, to furtherundergo 1 years' SI4 of PDPP To undergo 10 years RIAct and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI456 IPC To undergo 3 years RIand a fine of Rs. 3,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 6 months' SI307/120B To undergo 10 years' RIIPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI435/120B To undergo 7 years RIIPC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3124
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, Major Jagmal Singh Yadav and Ram Balak Patel, against the order dated Feb. 6, 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4 Deeg Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2008 whereby the trial court framed charges under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against them petitioner No. 1 is Proprietor of M/s. Jagmal Singh & Corporation and petitioner No. 2 is employee in the said firm. The said firm is a license holder firm bearing licence No. E/NC/HN/22/13 (E-10019) HN-159/E which was issued by the Chief Explosive Controller, Northern Region, Faridabad (Haryana) and is dealing in providing explosive for the use of mines in the country. For using explosive under the aforesaid license, the petitioner established site project office at village Luhesar, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur and sought permission to use explosive in the mines at Kaman by to Chief controller of Explosive. As per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj2973
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 23.05.1987 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby he convicted accused-appellant in the offence under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal succinctly are thus:On 27th January, 1985 at about 8.00 a.m. when P.W. 8, Shri Mahesh Chand Dubey, S.H.O. Police Station Khairthal, restrict Alwar was coming back after conducting an investigation in case no. 11 registered in the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 406 of Indian Penal Code, received an information from an informer that one Rohtash son of Badri Prasad resident of Khairthal, Alwar was manufacturing gun powder. Having received this informatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. This criminal appeal under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been filed against the order dated 07.05.2011 passed by the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency, Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the application (No.47/2011) for bail filed by the accused-appellant had been rejected. 2. The prosecution case was initiated on lodging of a First Information Report (No.85/2007), at Police Station Dargah, Ajmer for the offences under Section 302, 307, 323 and 295 IPC and also under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act. Thereafter, during the pendency of the investigation, which commenced after lodging of the said report, the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency, New Delhi by Government of India, vide order dated 01.04.2011. Therefore, the investigation in the present matter was conducted by the Agency from 06.04.2011 onwards and an F.I.R. (No.4/2011) came to be registered by the National Investigation Agency. 3. Later on an application for grant ...
Tag this Judgment!