Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-01-2007
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 The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24-9-2000 whereby the State Government has withdrawn its earlier letter dated 28-10-1998 wherein the State had given the benefit of parole, Open Camp Jail and Remission to the prisoners convicted under NDPS Act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 However, vide order dated 29-4-2000, the said letter was revoked.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
Decided on : Jan-05-2007
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
Decided on : Mar-13-2007
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
Decided on : Jul-04-2007
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
Decided on : Aug-02-2007
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
Decided on : Aug-14-2007
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!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-01-2007
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
Decided on : Nov-01-2007
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
Decided on : Nov-01-2007
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
Decided on : Jan-02-2007
Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj592
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant wife seeks to quash the order dated October 12, 1998 of Family Court No. 1, Jaipur whereby the decree of divorce was granted in favour of the respondent husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion.2. Contextual facts depict that the respondent husband in the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act averred that he entered into the marriage with Gopali (appellant) on May 12, 1981 and from their wedlock a male child was born on February 10, 1982. The wife thereafter treated him cruelly and left his house in May, 1982 leaving behind the child. The application seeking restoration of conjugal rights was filed by the wife which stood disposed of in July, 1984 on the basis of compromise and she started residing with him. Since she treated him cruelly and deserted him, he was entitled to the decree of divorce.3. The appellant wife submitted reply to the application denying the allegations levelled against her in the application. As many as th...
Tag this Judgment!