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 : 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 The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24-9-2000 whereby the State Government has withdrawn its earlier letter dated 28-10-1998 wherein the State had given the benefit of parole, Open Camp Jail and Remission to the prisoners convicted under NDPS Act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 However, vide order dated 29-4-2000, the said letter was revoked.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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : RLW2005(2)Raj779; 2005(2)WLC465
Dalip Singh, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Manish Dixit who is undergoing the sentence awarded to him in Sessions Case No. 158/1994 having being convicted for offences under Sections 302,397 and 364 I.P.C. and 7/25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and lesser sentence for the other offences and at present he is lodged in Central Jail, Jaipur.2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought the relief that in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1972'), he is entitled to be sent to the Open Air Camp at Sanganer and he seeks a direction for being sent to the said Open Air Camp. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was taken in the custody on 12.07.1994. He has already served the sentence of seven years for the offence under Section 397 I.P.C. yet he has been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj389
Harbans Lal, J.1. These writ petitions, which have been filed by way of public interest litigation, highlight issues of grave environmental and ecological degradation due to large scale illegal, un-authorised, un-scientific and un-systematic mining activities being undertaken in violation of the provisions of various enactments, rules framed and notifications issued thereunder, and the orders of the Supreme Court and this court. Some of the petitioners have made a grievance with regard to the operation of the stone crushers and use of explosive substances for winning the minerals from the mines on the ground that they are causing air and nose pollution. Since these writ petitions pertain to and address the common issues, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7544/03 has been filed by one Ashwani Chobisa, who is a practicing lawyer, in the Rajasthan High Court and claims himself to be a public spirited and keenly interested...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : III(2004)ACC810; AIR2005Raj124; RLW2004(4)Raj2074
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This first appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1987 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota, dismissed the civil suit No. 50/1983.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit on 2nd April 1983, for recovery of Rs. 18,500/- with the averments that in compliance of the orders of the plaintiffs, M/s Bhatia Stones Company, Ramganjmandi, district kota, booked polished stones worth Rs. 990.81 with the defendant Railway, vide Railway Receipt No. 334787 on 7.4.1980. The delivery of the goods was to be given to the plaintiffs at Bombay, but the same were not delivered by the defendants. The plaintiffs informed the defendants vide letters dated 1.6.1980 and 17.7.1980 and thereafter served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 25.8.1980 vide registered post, which was received but with no result. The plaintiffs prayed for decree of the suit amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. (3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005ACJ211; 2004WLC(Raj)UC706
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is by the insurance company to limit its liability towards third party to indemnify the insured within the precincts of the statutory liability fixed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act of 1939'), which was in force at the time the accident in question had taken place.2. This is the second time in this case the insurance company is before this court.3. The accident in question took place on 20.9.1984 resulting in the death of one Prabhu Ram whose legal representatives are respondent Nos. 1 to 9. The respondent No. 10 is driver and the respondent No. 11 is owner of the vehicle.4. The Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 119 of 1984 was lodged by the claimants and by award dated 27.4.1988, a sum of Rs. 1,04,000 was determined as compensation payable to the claimants which the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay to the dependants/legal representatives of the deceased, Prabhu Ram. That part of the award i...
Tag this Judgment!