Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-16-2004
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
Decided on : Oct-20-2004
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
Decided on : May-19-2004
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
Decided on : Apr-20-2004
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!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-22-2004
Reported in : II(2005)ACC657; 2006ACJ2477
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 13.5.1993 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dausa, in M.A.C.T. Claim No. 139 of 1989 for the enhancement of compensation awarded to the claimants.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 21.10.1989 the deceased Ramji Lal aged 40 years was travelling towards Dausa on the roof of the bus No. RNA 5330. On account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus who abruptly applied the brakes causing the appellant to fall down, as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries and consequently died.3. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and his monthly income was assessed at Rs. 750 by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal deducted one-third amount from Rs. 750 towards personal expenses and consequently determined the dependency/contribution for the family at Rs. 500. Learned Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-20-2004
Reported in : AIR2005Raj144; RLW2005(1)Raj590
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioners, in the instant writ petitions seek to assail the validity of the Rajasthan Sports Association (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Ordinance, 2004 (for short the 'Ordinance') which was promulgated and notified by the Governor of Rajasthan in the Gazette Notification dated August 18, 2004.2. The challenge is based on the following grounds:-(i) Exercise of power under Article 213 of the Constitution of India for promulgating the Ordinance was vitiated by non- existence of the conditions which control exercise of the powers by the Governor.(ii) The Ordinance represents an infraction of the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.(iii) The Ordinance is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, being unreasonable and arbitrary.ARTICLE 2133. In support of the first contention it is canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that the power under Article 213 is conditional and its exercise i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-20-2004
Reported in : II(2005)ACC807; 2005ACJ2053
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 15.6.1993 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 54 of 1990 which was filed by the appellants on account of death of Lada Devi, wife of Ramu, appellant No. 1, who died in a motor accident which took place on 4.11.1989 involving a jeep bearing registration No. RST 1466 which was being driven on the fateful day by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3, insurance company.2. The learned Tribunal assessed the dependency of the deceased as Rs. 500 per month and the age of the deceased at the time of accident as 35 years as such the annual dependency of Rs. 6,000 was multiplied by 16 and thus, on account of loss of income to the family as a result of death of the deceased an amount of Rs. 96,000 was arrived at. To that an amount of Rs. 15,000 was further awarded on account of loss of consortiu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-10-2004
Reported in : II(2005)ACC841
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 30.9.1994 in Claim Case No. 1314/1990 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- was awarded by way of compensation to the claimant-appellants on account of the death of Jagdish Saxena, husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 5 who died as a result of the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident involving the offending vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. RJR-2629 on 12.9.1990.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that compensation awarded, is inadequate and is liable to be enhanced as the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that deceased was an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur as Naikedar and even though his age has been determined as 50 years at the time of accident, he had sufficiently long career ahead of him. In which his salary and income was liable to be increased on a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-09-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1234; 2005(3)WLC143
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the determination of the question of court fees, by the learned Single Judge that is payable in an appeal preferred by a claimant against the award of compensation by the District Court Under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in a reference made Under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.2. The appellant has preferred an appeal Under Section 54 of the Act of 1894 against the determination of compensation by the learned District Judge to the extent he was aggrieved of it. The appeal was presented on the court fee of Rs. 2/-. The appellant has also not mentioned the value and subject matter of the appeal. The office raised an objection that the memo of appeal does not show the subject matter and value of the appeal and that the court fee payable on the memo of appeal against the award of compensation by the District Judge Under Section 23 is ad valorem on the value of the subject matter of the appeal. In support of this objection, a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-08-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1812; 2005(2)WLC290
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by appellants Khem Chand @ Pappu and Smt. Prabhati arises out of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, thereby convicting the appellants for offence under Section 304B IPC and sentencing then to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.2. On 26.7.98 at 11.10 AM complainant Moti Ram submitted a typed report, Ex.P3 at Police Station Sadar, Sikar alleging therein that he had performed the marriage of his neice Santosh daughter of his brother late Birma Ram. According to him his brother Birma Ram was not alive at the time of marriage and that he had given dowry beyond his capacity but still the members of her in laws family were not satisfied with the dowry and started harassing her mentally and physically. Whenever she visited her parents house, she complained of torturing, be labouring and not providing food on account of less dowry given at the time of marriage and that complain...
Tag this Judgment!