Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-27-2006
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
Decided on : Jan-02-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1281; 2006WLC(Raj)UC118
Sharma, J.1. Ram Niwas and Jafru, the appellants herein, along with Ram Kumar and Bahadur were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahpura District Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 15/1999. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated February 12, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:--Ram Niwas:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.Under Section 364 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.Jafaru:Under Section 364 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500A, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.Co-accused Ram Kumar and Bahadur were convi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-03-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj422
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. 1. The petitioners, Jayanti Lal and Hansmukh lal, have submitted this writ petition against the order dated 23.5.2001 (Annex.6) passed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur particularly questioning the interpretation put by the learned commissioner on the provisions of Sections 38 and 39 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts act, 1959 ('the Act' hereinafter).2. A brief reference to the background facts would suffice. According to the petitioners, there exists an ancient Teerth of Shri Andeshwar Parshvanath at Kushalgarh about 50 kilometers from Banswara. The idol dates back to 12th or 13th Century and the temple exists at the said place of almost a century. A Public Trust in the name of 'Shri Atishay Kshetra Shri Andeshwarji Bees Panthi Jain Mandir, Kushalgarh' was got registered under the provisions of the act on 20.7.1966; and at the time of registration, 11 Trustees were named as the initial Trustees with Shri Seth Nathmal as the working truste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-06-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj903; 2006(2)WLC26
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. That by the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Election Tribunal Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Karauli, whereby the election filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2 Smt. Chandra Kala has been rejected.2. The case of the petitioner before the Election Tribunal was that the respondent No. 1 Smt. Chandra Kala was disqualified under Section 19(gg) and (m) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') to contest the election of Gram Panchayat Naroli Dang on the date of filing the nomination paper for the same on 30.1.2005 on account of pendency of criminal case for offence under Section 419, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, wherein the cognizance was taken on 19.1.2002 and charge has been framed for offence under Sections 467 & 120-B IPC on 13.10.2004.3. The respondent No. 2 the returned candidate has filed reply to the writ petition and submitted therein that in view of subsequent acqui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-09-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2477; 2006(1)WLC563
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. For the rape and murder of a helpless woman Rekha, appellants have been sentenced to death. Learned trial Judge has referred papers of this case for confirmation of death sentence whereas the appellants have challenged order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by filing appeals. Substantial questions of general importance and somewhat ticklish, involved in the case are whether Rajesh, presented as an approver by the prosecution around whose testimony almost entire case of prosecution rests, qualify as an approver in view of his statements made under Sections 164, 306, Cr. P.C. and his testimony before the Court where he completely exculpates himself and inculpates only appellants and whether from narration of facts given by him, he rather appears to be a protestor, preventor and to some extent, even a victim of the crime himself. The other question of equal significance that confronts the Court is that if testimony of Rajesh is discarded as approver whet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-2006
Reported in : II(2006)ACC335
Narendre Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These two appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are directed against the judgment/award dated 6.8.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 527 1992 and 221/1993, whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,56,000 in Motor Accident Claim case No. 52/1992 for the death of Jai Singh, who died in motor vehicle accident, which took place on 12.11.1987 and Rs. 30,000 for loss of damage to the property in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 221/1993. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.3. Learned Counsel for the claimant appellants contended that in MAC Case No. 221/92 filed by Rana Ahmad, the Tribunal committed an illegality in deducting Rs. 15,000 for sale of scrape of the vehicle, without any evidence on record. He contended that he claimed total...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-13-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj573; 2006(2)WLC42
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The accused appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No, 18/99 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in each offence under Section 8/18 and Section 19 to 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1 lac. Both the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. In case accused fails to make the payment of the amount of fine then he will further undergo in each offence two years RI meaning thereby additional RI for 4 years.2. The prosecution case in brief is that a complaint was filed by Central Narcotics Bureau against accused appellant in Court of Special Judge, NDPS case, Jhalawar under Section 8/18 and 8/19 of the NDPS Act, 1985 wherein it was alleged that the accused was holding a licence of cultivation of opium for the year 1998-99. During the period from 6.3.1999 to 23.3. 1999 the daywise weighed of opium produce was mentioned in the daily weigh register duly signed by a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-13-2006
Reported in : AIR2006Raj119; 2006(2)WLC160
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure-3) passed in civil suit No. 96/01 pending before the Additional District Judge, Sikar whereby the Additional District Judge refused to consolidate the four civil suits for recovery of money on the ground that the plaintiffs are different, cause of actions and amount are different and further merely because the defendant is common a such cases cannot be consolidated. It was also observed that in Section 10 CPC there is no provision of consolidation nor in any other provision of CPC such cases can be consolidated.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed four separate civil suit against petitioners for recovery of different amount which become due on different dates against petitioner-defendants, and all the civil suits are pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sikar. The details of the suits number and amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-13-2006
Reported in : IV(2006)ACC127; 2007ACJ1394; RLW2006(2)Raj1034
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.8.1990 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 86/1985 dismissing the appeal of the appellant Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act')2. In view of the limited controversy involved in this appeal it is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in details. Suffice it to mention that one Bhagwan Singh was employed as Khalasi on Truck No. RSN 5900 owned by Hari Singh. On 23.3.1981, driver of the truck Tulcha Ram, took it to workshop for repairs. While it was being moved inside, the stone pattis of the truck fell over him as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for treatment and he remained hospitalised for about four months. On 8.7.1981 he filed claim petition under Rule 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 before the Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur, se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-13-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1359; 2006(2)WLC142
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.12.1913. a lease was executed for 30 years between the predecessor of the petitioner company and the erstwhile ruler of Bundi State for mining lime stone in the area measuring 101 sq. miles. Part II of the lease confers rights and privileges on the predecessor of the petitioner company. Clause 3 of Part II of the lease deed is reproduced hereunder:3. Liberty and power to appropriate and use for any purpose connected with the said mines and quarries the water upon or within any of the said lands and to collect and impound the came in ponds reservoirs or otherwise for the purpose of working the said mines and quarries but so that in the exercise of this privilege the Lessees shall not deprive only lands villages houses or watering places for cattle of a reasonable quantity of water as before accustomed and do not in any way foul impregnate or otherwise deteriorate any springs or streams of water so as to render them useless or unpr...
Tag this Judgment!