Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-18-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1867; 2004(2)WLC740
A.C. Goyal, J.1. Legal heirs of the deceased-original landlord Sh. Suraj Narain have challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1998 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the suit of eviction.2. On 5.8.1991 the original landlord Sh. Suraj Narain filed the suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the tenant Sh. Prem Chand and sub-tenant Sh. Rambabu-the defendant No. 2 with, the averments that a big hall consisting of two shops of municipal Nos. 94 & 95 was let out to the defendant No. 1 Prem Chand on monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. Rent note was executed on 7.4.3978. Lateron monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 300/-. The plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent since January, 1987, material alteration in the year 1987 converting this hall into two separate shops in 'L' shape and opening a new door by breaking the southern wall, sub-letting of one portion of shop No. 95 to the defendant No. 2 and non-user of the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-16-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2408; 2004(3)WLC782
Goyal, J.1. The defendant-tenant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 21.2.2002. The parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a civil suit for eviction on 12.8.1998 with the averments that the suit house No. H3, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur was let-out to the defendant in the year 1962 on monthly rent of Rs. 265/-. Present rate of rent is Rs. 2000/- per month. The plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide requirement, material alterations, assigning, sub-letting or parting with the possession of some parts of the suit premises giving the details with regard to each of the grounds of eviction.3. The defendant in his written statement while admitting the tenancy denied all the grounds of eviction with pleas that the plaintiff is in possession of his own accommo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-29-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Raj327; RLW2004(4)Raj2629; 2004(4)WLC151
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7-10-2003 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 5925/2003 by which he has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition which had been filed by the petitioner-appellant herein Life Insurance Corporation challenging the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat Jhalawar, wherein the Life Insurance Corporation had raised a dispute that the policy holder was guilty of suppression of material fact at the time when he took the life insurance policy from the appellant corporation. It was their case that the respondent No. 2 Suresh Kumar who is the son of the de-ceased-policy-holder-Lal Chand Mali was not entitled to the benefit on the life of the insured, as his late father was guilty of suppression of material fact before the Life Insurance Corporation since he had suppressed the fact about his disease and therefore the beneficiary i.e. the son of the insured who is the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-10-2004
Reported in : III(2004)ACC355; 2006ACJ292; RLW2004(4)Raj2279; 2004(3)WLC489
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Appellant Insurance. Company choose to prefer five appeals in five claim cases, out of total nine accident claim cases which were decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh by common award dated 11.07.2003.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2002 after performing the last rites of deceased Ami Lal, family members of deceased Ami Lal and his relatives were coming back to Rajgarh in a Jeep No. RJ 10C 1764 and while coming back, they met with accident resulting into death of seven persons, namely, Mangi Lal, Smt. Kanta, Smt. Mohini Devi, Rawat Mal, Mahaveer Prasad, Tilok Chand and Rakesh Kumar. One Ram Kishan and another Ramesh @ Kalu suffered serious injuries. It was also alleged the Murari Lal (non-claimant No. 3 in the Claim Case No. 53/2002).by driving the jeep rashly and negligently caused the accident. The accident occurred at Delhi-Bikaner Road on 28.6.2002 at 4.00 p.m. An F.I.R. No. 196/2002 was lodged in the Police Station, Sapala and chal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-11-2004
Reported in : III(2004)ACC366; 2006ACJ1316; RLW2004(4)Raj2305; 2004(3)WLC555
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.2. These appeal are against the award dated 17.4,2003 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner passed in Claim Cases filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988.3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants alleged that on 8.7.1988 at about 10 p.m. victims were travelling in the three wheeler taxi RJ. 07.P.0626, Tola Ram was driving the three wheeler taxi and when taxi reached near the Chungi check post just before the Municipal boundary of the Bikaner, near Shiv Shakti Gas Godown, a truck No. RSF 3949 came and hit the taxi and dragged the taxi far away from the road and the truck ran over the three wheeler. The taxi went under the fuel tank of the truck. In this accident, six persons died and the driver of the taxi suffered injuries. All the seven set of the claimants including the driver of the three wheeler taxi submitted claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-26-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj803; 2004(4)WLC702
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. The short question involved in this special appeal which requires adjudication of this court is confined only to the extent whether the claimant appellants is entitled to get interest on the amount of enhanced compensation.2. The show cause notice issued by this court on 7.4.2003 was also confined only to the question of grant of interest on the enhanced amount.3. At the very out set, it may be stated that respondents No. 3 and 4 have not been served, while respondent No. 2 has been reported, to have passed away. However, respondents No. 1 and 5, namely the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and New India Insurance Company Ltd. have been duly served and are represented through their counsel. The respondent No. 1 is the only contesting respondent and counsel for the parties have prayed that service on respondents No. 3 and 4 may be dispensed with. Accordingly service on respondents No. 2 to 4 is dispensed with.4. With the consent of the parties, we have h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-30-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2764
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under:'(i) to direct respondents to pay the post retirement benefits as admissible to the employees of Union of India such as pension, Group Insurance and other post retirement benefits along with interest to the petitioner;(ii) to treat the petitioner in service as Assistant Manager (Depot) Food Corporation of India Dholpur till March 31,1985 and to pay him duty salary for month of March, 1985 along with interest.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner came to be appointed as Enquiry Inspector in the department of Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. Vide order dated July 1, 1947. The petitioner was declared surplus and retrenched due to the General Retrenchment Scheme on July 2, 1953. On the basis of six years experience the benefit was provided to retrenched employees and the petitioner was selected for the appointment in the cadre of Verification Inspector in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-19-2004
Reported in : I(2005)ACC718; 2006ACJ1858; RLW2005(1)Raj236; 2005(1)WLC293
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988) has been filed by the claimants appellants against the judgment and award dtd. 15.5.1989 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in Claim Cases No. 106/85 and 85/1986 by which he awarded a sum of 60,000/- as compensation to the claimants - appellants on account of death of Smt. Madan Kumari (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and Rs. 200/- on account of damage caused to the Hero Majestic Moped No. RRN 4059 (hereinafter referred to as the Moped in question), but this appeal has been filed by the appellants'- claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased for enhancement of the amount of compensation.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) That the appellants - claimants filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal), on 9.12.87 cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-22-2004
Reported in : 2006ACJ2119; AIR2005Raj65; RLW2005(1)Raj187; 2005(1)WLC123
Anil Dev Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07th July, 2004 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1497/2004, whereby the writ petition against the award of the permanent Lok Adalat was dismissed summarily. Before we take up the determination of the issues involved in the appeal, few facts need to be noticed. 2. The husband of the third respondent, Nawal Kishore Mittal, had taken a policy of Life Insurance from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The insured failed to pay the premium with the result that the policy was not renewed w.e.f. 28th April, 1997. Subsequently, the insured made by the requisite payment and the policy was renewed by the appellant, Life Insurance Corporation of India w.e.f. March, 2000. Subsequently, on 12th May 2002, the insured died. The appellant insurer did not entertain the claim of the widow on the ground that the insured had concealed the fact that he was suffering from diabetes at the time of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-27-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj558; 2005(2)WLC429
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is the second appeal by the defendant- tenant against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 20.3.1999 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. The plaintiff Sh. Jamnadas filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 16.9.1976 against the defendant-tenant Sh. Kesar Lal with the averments that two shops and one 'Kotha' were let-out to the defendant on 9.2.1951 on monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. On account of default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide requirement for the plaintiff's son Rajendra Kumar, the plaintiff had filed a civil suit No. 19/1969 for arrears of rent and eviction. The defendant in that civil suit filed an application under Section 13-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act). That application was decided on 31.10.1975. The...
Tag this Judgment!