Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1128; 2005(2)WLC736
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. A notice was published in the newspaper on 14.12.2000 for giving distributorship for the LPG Gas by the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner's claim is that she also applied for the LPG Gas dealership for the Makarana area situated in the District Nagaur, which was reserved for the Army Personnel (Woman). According to petitioner, the said LPG distributorship was obtained by the respondent No. 3 by furnishing false information to the Indian Oil Corporation. The allegations of the petitioner are that; (i) she did not disclose that she was Director of one School situated at House No. 117 and 118 at Sunder Nagar, Jaipur and she is earning from the said school, (iii) the respondent No. 3 was LIC agent since last so many years and was earning income from that agency, (iii) she submitted false affidavit, did not disclose income in the affidavit, The TDS certificate issued by the LIC, shows that the respondent No. 3 was earning at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj446; 2005WLC(Raj)UC205
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.The petitioner, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam, through its Assistant Engineer (O&M;), Gangapur City has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Offence), Sawaimadhopur, by which the learned Special Judge has returned the complaint filed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act' to the petitioner for presentation before the competent court, inasmuch as, having gone through the complaint the learned Special Judge was of the view that the court subordinate to it should have committed the case to this court,2. The Special Court .was constituted for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139. Section 154 of the Act provides the procedure and power of the Special Court. Sub section (1) of Section 154 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1736; 2005(2)WLC612
K.S. Rathore, J.1. These are two writ petitions involving similar questions of law and, therefore, both the petitions are being heard together and decided by this common order.2. The facts of the writ petition No. 6144/2004 are being taken as leading case. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petitions has prayed for writ, order or direction to quash and set aside FIR Nos. 109/2004 and 110/2004 registered before Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and all investigation and proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.3. The brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as Member, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, an FIR No. 109/2004 under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(a), 13(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with 120B IPC was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau on 9.6.2004.4. The allegation in the FIR was that according to source information illegal benefit was to be granted by the petitioner by passing a review order in a revenue matter titled Kamla Devi v. State. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj470; 2005WLC(Raj)UC292
Suresh Chandra Singhal, J.1. This Criminal revision application has been directed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated dated 24.10.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 74/1993, 46/1992 confirming the judgment dated 02.11.1992 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar in Cr. Case No. 97/1982 by which he has convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Herein after referred to as the 'Act of 1954') and sentenced him to under 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to suffer three months simple imprisonment.2. To prove the case against the accused petitioner, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst has opined in his report (Ex.P9) that the sample is adulterated as it does not confirm the prescribed standard. He has not mentioned that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj19; IV(2005)BC475; RLW2005(2)Raj1336; 2005(3)WLC341
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The appellants State of Rajasthan and others have submitted this appeal against the order dated 28.11.1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 86/1986 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the demand notice-Annex. 13 and directed the State Government to deposit the amount of Rs. 29,627/- received from the petitioner in the welfare fund at the disposal of the Chief Minister.2. The matter pertains to the attempted recovery towards alleged breach of contract by the writ petitioner-Nathulal. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants issued a notice inviting offers for the contract of collection of Tendu leaves in different forest areas. The invitation was issued on 30.1.1973 (Annex.R/1) fixing the date of auction as 22.2.1973. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was one of the bidders for the area of erstwhile Bijoliya Jagir falling in Mandalgarh range of Forest Division, Chittorgarh for the season of 1973. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC105; 2006ACJ1241; RLW2005(1)Raj512; 2005(2)WLC80
N.P. Gupta, J.1. All these appeals arise out of the same accident, and vide different orders, passed in different files, on different dates, they have been ordered to be listed together, and are being disposed of by the common order. For convenience, the facts relating to Civil Misc. Appeal No. 119/2004 are being taken into account.2. The appeal came up for admission before the Court on 14.7.2004, and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1531, the appeal as against the claimant was not admitted, and for that learned counsel for the appellant had no objection. As such the appeal against the claimant was dismissed, however, the appeal against the owner was admitted, and while dismissing the stay application, it was directed, that the appellant should deposit the whole amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal, which may be paid to the claimants, as per the terms of the impugned award. It was further dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(2005)ACC334; 2006ACJ2641; 2004WLC(Raj)UC310
Dalip Singh, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 15.10.1993 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 135 and 188 of 1987.S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 677 of 1994:2. This appeal has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award passed by the M.A.C.T., Ajmer in Claim Petition No. 135 of 1987 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. On account of death of Bholu, who met with an accident involving bus No. RNM 7284 which was owned by respondent No. 6 and was given on contract to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, respondent No. 7 and insured with appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. Learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 4,25,000 by way of compensation to the claimants-respondents.3. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj26; 2005WLC(Raj)UC336
Govind Mathur, J. 1. By this regular first appeal the plaintiff-appellant has given challenge to the judgment and decree dated 6-11-1985 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Original Suit No. 13/84 tilled as Khayali Lal v. Mangilal.2. The plaintiff-appellant preferred a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,780/- alleging inter alia that defendant Mangilal had taken a loan of Rs. 13,000/- from the plaintiff to purchase a tractor. The loan was taken on 13-4-1987. According to plaintiff the defendant agreed to pay interest @ 2% per month. The plaintiff and defendant also executed an agreement in this regard. The plaintiff also alleged that the said principle amount was not paid to him and in addition to that the interest from 13-1-1984 to 13-4-1984 amounting to the tune of Rs. 780/- was also not paid. A decree, therefore, for the amount of Rs. 13,780/- with future interest was claimed by the plaintiff.3. A written statement was filed on be-hall of the defendant admitting the fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj522; 2005(2)WLC121
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The matter is disposed of finally as prayed by counsel for the parties.Petitioner has challenged the award dated 2.1.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal Jaipur, by which while holding the termination of services of respondent No. 1 the concerned workman as illegal and unjustified, the concerned workman has been ordered to be reinstated with full back-wages and all consequential benefits.2. The facts as has come on record are that the concerned workman was appointed on daily wages basis as a Conductor on 24.10.1986. The services of the concerned workman were terminated vide order dated 11.2.1987 on the ground of unsatisfactory work. Since a general reference of demands was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in regard to employees of the petitioners corporation, a compliant under Section 33-A was filed by the concerned workman before the tribunal. There is to dispute that before termination of service of the concerned workman neither any chargesheet was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2005Raj193; RLW2005(3)Raj1517; 2005(2)WLC137
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This appeal is by the appellant-defendant, wife of respondent-plaintiff, to challenge the divorce decree dated 21.1.2004 granted by the Trial Court against the appellant- defendant. The Trial Court granted the divorce decree under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the plaintiff- respondent and the defendant-appellant was solemnized on 6.12.1994 at village Loonkaransar in accordance with the Hindu rites. The plaintiff alleged that even at the time of Saptpadi, the defendant-appellant had no control over her body and she was not in position to take Saptpadi. The defendant's sister gave one tablet to the defendant and she told the plaintiff that the defendant is sick. Just after Saptpadi, when photos were taken, the defendant's brother again gave one tablet to the defendant. The marriage was not consummated between the parties despite efforts of the plaintiff on the first night of the marriage or in four ...
Tag this Judgment!