Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj475; 2005WLC(Raj)UC158
Harbans Lal, J.1. This petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 7.7.2004 granting bail to non-petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash by the learned Sessions Judge Khetri in F.I.R. No. 165/2004 PS Buhana for the offences under Section 376, 354, 323, 341, 324 and 511 1PC.2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid criminal case came to be registered on the basis of a Parcha Bayan of Smt. Rajbala, the prosecutrix alleging rape with her by accused-non-petitioner No. 2 at about 8.00 A.M. on 26.6.2004 when she was cutting green grass in her filed. The main and sole ground for cancellation of bail is that the bail was granted within a period of 7 days from the date of the arrest of the accused without taking into consideration the relevant 'facts of the case and the entire material including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.3. I have heard at length learned counsel for the parties and the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1545; 2005(2)WLC38
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This writ petition by the Union of India and others is directed against the order dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 212/1996 whereby the Tribunal allowed the application submitted by respondent No. 1 Vishnu Lal Nai and while maintaining the findings of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority on the charges against him, modified the punishment awarded to him.2. The facts leasing to the present petition could be summarised thus: Respondent No. 1 Vishnu Lal Nai was working as Postman at the Sub-Post Office, Devgarh when he was served with a charge-sheet on 21.10.1994 with the allegations that while working as postman at Sub-Post Office, Devgarh on 17.8.1994 at about 17.50 hours in the evening, he entered the office of Inspector, Post Office, Devgarh and misbehaved with the Inspector, Shri Pratap Thakur by hurling abuses at him and threw down two chairs of the office which fel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for pe...
Tag this Judgment!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 : [2005(105)FLR454]; RLW2005(3)Raj2024; 2005(2)WLC123
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying, inter alia, therein that the award dated June 6, 2003 (Annex.P/1), passed by the Labour Court may be quashed and set aside and the claim petition of Respondent No. 2-Neena Agarwal (applicant) may be rejected.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition as alleged by the Petitioner-Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., are that (the applicant-respondent No. 2 was appointed on a fixed pay in the year, 1996, in the Office of RIICO, Abu Road, through M/s. Private Security Services, Abu Road, on contract basis, where, she was given the work of Stenographer/Junior Assistant. The applicant worked till December 31, 1998. On 31st December, 1998, her services were terminated by a verbal order.3. During the course of conciliation, the Petitioner-RIICO admitted that she was given work on contract basis through M/s. Private Security Services, Abu Road and that contract came to an end in the month of July, 1998. The applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(2005)ACC504
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur against the award dated 8-4-1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, Distt. Jaipur in Claim Case No. 220/1992. Whereby a claim petition filed by the claimant respondents was allowed to the extent of Rs. three lacs (Rs. 3,00,000/-) only as a compensation on account of the death of one Kesari Mal Sharma, who died as a result of the multiple injuries suffered by him in a motor accident involving two truck No. DEL 381 owned by the respondent No. 6.2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is on the excessive side and comes as a windfall. To oppose the above submission, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the quantum of compensation cannot be challenged by the Insurance Company as there was no application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the appellant. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC516; 2006ACJ328; 2005(4)WLC1
Rajesh Balia, J.1. All these appeals arise out of accident claim cases which arose on account of a single accident which took place on 10.7.1992. On that date, Padma Ram, Chaina Ram and Hamu Ram were travelling in Jonga jeep No. RSF 8247, being driven by Nimb Singh and it was travelling towards road leading from Barmer to Jaisalmer. As a result of the said accident, Padma Ram and Chaina Ram died and Hamu Ram suffered injuries.2. Three claim petitions were filed: one by heirs and dependants of Chaina Ram being M.A.C.T. Case No. 74 of 1992; second by Hamu Ram being M.A.C.T. Case No. 2 of 1993; and third by Chauthi and Pancha Ram, parents of Padma Ram being M.A.C.T. Case No. 82 of 1992 impleading United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Barmer, as the insurer and Nimb Singh and Narpat Singh being the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer vide its award dated 23.2.1995 finding that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by Nimb Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj519
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.9.2004 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Dholpur in Civil Appeal No. 43/2004. The aforesaid order is mainly challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Tribunal has not properly considered the case and passed the impugned judgment dated 27.9.2004, which is per se in contravention of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Section 9, which deals with eviction of tenants and is reproduced as under:'Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract by subject to other provisions of this Act, the Rent tribunal shall order eviction of tenant unless unless it is satisfied that, -'(a) the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for four months:Provided that the ground under this clause shall not be available to the landlord if he has not disclosed to the tenant his bank account number and name of the bank in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj476
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The defect pointed out in SB Civil Writ Petition (def) No. 14/05 is cured by the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. Since all the writ petitions involve common question of law, the same are heard and decided by this common order.3. All these writ petitions are filed against the order dated 22.12.2004 whereby the Collector, Jhunjhunu rejected the appeals of petitioners with regard to deletion of name of respondent No. 4 from the electoral roll of village panchayat Bhojasar and include the names of the petitioners in electoral of village Panchayat Bhojasar.4. The Collector, Jhunjhunu wide order dated 22.12.2004 rejected all the 20 appeals on the ground that as per Rule 21(2)(a) the appeal memo should be signed by the applicants and the same were not signed by the applicants, therefore, the appeals were rejected.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed that order on the ground that it is not necessary to sign the appeal memo. He also referred the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(2005)ACC881; 2006ACJ2412
Dalip Singh, J.1. The matter comes up for orders on the stay application, however, at the joint request made by the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard for final hearing as the arguments of the stay application and the main appeal are same.2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ram Singh met with an accident on 27.5.2000 which involved two motor vehicles, i.e., trucks; one bearing registration No. RJ 01-G 4526 and another one bearing registration No. PB 7-B 8695. The first truck was insured with the appellant, i.e., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the later truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur, i.e., respondent No. 6. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, while deciding the issue Nos. 3 and 5 has held that the age of deceased was 22 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. Since the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident a multiplier of 12 was applied in consonance with the judgment of their Lordsh...
Tag this Judgment!