Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-16-1996
Reported in : 1997ACJ304; AIR1996Raj126; 1996(1)WLN152
Arun Madan, J.1. The appellant-InsuranceCompany has preferred this appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), againstthe Award, dated 29th January, 1994, passedby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behrodin Civil Miscellaneous (MAC) Case No. 130/92 (34/90) whereby an Award of Rupees5,96,000/- was passed in favour of claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Aggrieved by the saidAward the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that on 30th September, 1989 at about 7.00 p.m. late Pareesh Marya was driving his Maruti Van bearing Registration No. DAJ 3013 on Behrod-Sahjahanpur road. A Truck bearing Registration No. DIG 3144 was parked in a stationary position on the national highway near Behrod 1 km. ahead of Neemrana turn. Instead of parking the truck on the footpath its driver had parked the same on the road. Since the parking lights of the truck were not on at that time and also on account of darkness the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-18-1996
Reported in : 1997CriLJ2727
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. The above named petitioners have filed this bail application Under Section 439, Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 89/96 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana pertaining to F.I.R. No. 94 dated 14-9-1995, Police Station Khunkhuna Under Sections 302, 364, 365, 176 and 201 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Camp Deedwana has rejected the bail application of the petitioners vide order dated 28-9-1996. The petitioners moved first hail application No. 481/96 along with other co-accused persons, which was allowed to be withdrawn on the request with liberty to file a fresh bail application after the receipt of copies of the statements. The second bail application No. 1068/96 was rejected on 9-9-1996 along with Misc. Petition No. 26/96 Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging the orders dated 25-3-1996 and 26-3-1996 taking cognizance by learned Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana. Now the petitioners have moved this third bail application.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-12-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Raj118; I(1998)DMC23; 1997WLC(Raj)UC50
Bhagwati Prasad, J. 1. Thehusband-appellant is aggrieved by the dissolution of marriage by adecree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Udaipur from the respondent-wife Smt. Mamta. The respondent-wife Smt. Mamta filed divorce petition on the grounds that ever since they were married the appellant-husband started pressurising her to get more offerings from her parents. He started beating her and he went even to the extent of turning her outof the house. In this process, the husband came into contact with another lady Saroj, who was an employee in the Medical Department and started living with her. Not only did he start living with the said Saroj, out of their relationship a daughter was also born. According to the allegations of wife-respondent, a son was born from the wedlock and this child was taken away by the husband and he kept the child with Smt. Saroj at her place of service. The defendant-husband contested the petition. He denied that he has ever ill-treated the wife. She has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-05-1996
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC560; 1996(2)WLN322
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the order impugned dated 3.10.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand rejecting the application of the petitioner for leave to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- deposited in his Fixed Deposits Account No. 19368 in the Bank of Baroda, Nathdwara District Rajsamand for purposes of solemnising marriage of his graduate daughter Miss Deepika aged about 22 years with Anil son of Shri Onkar Lal Chaplot resident of Fateh Nagar Sanward District Udaipur scheduled to be solemnised on 12.12.1996.3. The impugned dated 3.10.96 has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the instant revision without disclosing the provisions either under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules framed thereunder.4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist urged before me that the District Judge who functions as a Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not only within the administrative control of the High Court but also subordinate to it under Section 115, C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-03-1996
Reported in : (1998)111STC27Tribunal
1. This application for revision filed under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 ("RST Act", for short) before the Rajasthan High Court which stood transferred to this Tribunal with the coming into force of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 is directed against the judgment dated April 12, 1993 in Appeal No.96/92/ST/Jaipur of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (as the Rajasthan Tax Board was then known and hereinafter referred to as "the Board") by which the judgment dated March 31, 1992 in Appeal No.620/RST/JPA/DC-3/91-92 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-III partially accepting the appeal of the present respondent against assessment order dated October 29, 1991 by which the petitioner had ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of tax collected by the respondent on the component of discount and ordering instead for its realisation with interest and thereafter for its refund was set aside.2. The relevant facts are that the respondent (assessee-firm) gives to its ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-03-1996
Reported in : 1996(2)WLN689
B.J. Shethana, J.1. The petitioner who claims to be Harijan has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Revenue Court i.e. S.D.O., Hanumangarh on 18.6.82 (Annex. 2) by which the suit filed by the present respondents No. 4 to 8 for eviction under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act) came to be decreed against the petitioner and Shri Milkhi Ram, respondent No. 9 against which an appeal was preferred before the Revenue appellate authority, Bikaner which came to be dismissed on 27.1.1983 (Annex. 3). Second appeal preferred before the Board of Revenue also came to be dismissed on 5.10.88 (Annex. 4). These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Strictly speaking this is not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Learned Counsel Shri Sharma for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-02-1996
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ149Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC48
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner who is grandson of late Shri Sadhu Ram is seeking mandamus and direction to the respondents for providing him employment/ appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). It is stated that late Shri Sadhu Ram was employed in Education Department as Teacher Gr. III and while he was in service, he died on December 30, 1984. It appears that he left Shri Bhagwan Sahai (son) and his wife Smt. Hazari Devi behind him. According to the petitioner, he moved an application on March 16, 1994 for getting appointment under the Rules of 1975. His claim was rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to get appointment under the Rules.2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly denied as the benefit under the Rules could be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-29-1996
Reported in : 1998ACJ67
G.L. Gupta, J.1. The unfortunate accident took place on 18.6.1989 on National Highway No. 11 near village Barson. Seven persons lost their lives and some persons received multiple injuries. Claim cases were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured. The Tribunal tried all the cases together and disposed of them vide judgment dated 30.10.1993. Two vehicles were involved in the accident. It was found that there was composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. The claims were decreed against the driver, owner and the insurer of the jeep as also the Union of India who was the owner of the truck. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., insurer of the jeep filed 8 appeals. The Union of India has also filed 8 appeals. Claimant Shakshi Devi has filed appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. In Appeal No. 800 of 1993 cross-objection has also been filed by the claimants. Since all the appeals and cross-objection arise out of the same award, they have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-27-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Raj209; 1997(1)WLC292
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Should the executing court dispose of the objection application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure summarily? This short question arises for consideration in this revision.2. By the Amendment Act of 1976, reference to Section 47 has been omitted from the definition of 'decree' in Section 2(2) and a determination of any question within Section 47 would not now amount to a decree and would not be appealable as a decree. Since Sub-section (2) of Section 47 is deleted by the Amendment Act of 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977, the Court is no longer bound to treat an application under Section 47 raising objection to the executing of the decree, as a suit.In the light of aforementioned legal position I proceed to examine the facts of this case which are as follows: (i) Durga Prasad (since deceased and represented by Legal representatives) instituted a suit for declaration, possession, injunction and rendition of accounts, which was dismissed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-27-1996
Reported in : 1997(2)WLC292; 1996(2)WLN445
R.R. Yadav, J.1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner questions legality and validity of his dismissal order dated 23.1.90 Annx.29 passed by respondent No. 2 and older dated 19.4.90 Annx.33 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing his appeal.2. The aforesaid two orders have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that he was appointed by the General Manager (respondent No. 3) whereas dismissal order has been passed by the Superintending Engineer (Drilling) (respondent No. 2) who is admittedly lower in rank to respondent No. 3. No charge-sheet and materials in support thereof have been supplied during domestic enquiry which has caused serious prejudice to him. He was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing and the orders impugned have been passed against the principles of natural justice and fair play.3. The factual genesis of the present case has a chequered history. It is alleged that the petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1060 of 1989 b...
Tag this Judgment!