Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-09-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2477; 2006(1)WLC563
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. For the rape and murder of a helpless woman Rekha, appellants have been sentenced to death. Learned trial Judge has referred papers of this case for confirmation of death sentence whereas the appellants have challenged order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by filing appeals. Substantial questions of general importance and somewhat ticklish, involved in the case are whether Rajesh, presented as an approver by the prosecution around whose testimony almost entire case of prosecution rests, qualify as an approver in view of his statements made under Sections 164, 306, Cr. P.C. and his testimony before the Court where he completely exculpates himself and inculpates only appellants and whether from narration of facts given by him, he rather appears to be a protestor, preventor and to some extent, even a victim of the crime himself. The other question of equal significance that confronts the Court is that if testimony of Rajesh is discarded as approver whet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-08-2006
Reported in : III(2006)ACC73
ORDERK.C. Sharma, J.1. Through this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant seeks to quash the award dated 17.2.1994 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition No. 29/90.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned award and the record of the case.3. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide its award under challenge dismissed the Claim Petition No. 29/90 filed by the claimant appellant, observing that at the time of accident, Prem Singh @ Prithvi was driver of the jeep and since the accident occurred on account of his negligence, his mother is not entitled to claim any compensation.4. That sole question which requires to be adjudicated upon is as to whether deceased Prem Singh @ Prithvi was the occupant of the jeep or was the driver of the vehicle? 5. The factual matrix in brief are that on 14.11.1989 at about 4.40 p.m. Bus No. 1206 belonging to the Rajastnan State Road Transport Corporation coll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-24-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1642; 2006(3)WLC1
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioners- Institution seeks to challenge the order dated 1.8.1994 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal) in case No. 127/94 whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioners-Institution to fill the vacant post of Library LDC by promoting respondent No. 3 Beni Prasad Saini, who is class-IV employee.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Tribunal for seeking direction for filling the post of Library LDC by promoting him and further the advertisement issued for filling the same be quashed. It has also been prayed that in case during pendency of the appeal, the post is filled in pursuance to the said advertisement, then the same be declared illegal and contrary to law. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 3 has submitted that he is class-IV employee in Agrawal College since 25 years having qual...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-28-2006
Reported in : 2007ACJ420
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. These two appeals preferred respectively by the insurer of one of the vehicles involved in the accident and by the claimants against the same award dated 1.9.1998 made by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur in M.A.C. Case No. 604 of 1995 were heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. The insurer contends that the victim being driver of the Roadways bus involved in the accident, having suffered employment injury and being covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.S.I. Act'/'the Act of 1948'), the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act'/'the Act of 1988'). On the other hand, the claimants seek enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. The facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in these appeals could be noticed thus: The claimants, appellants in C.M.A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-10-2006
Reported in : (2007)207CTR(Raj)588; [2007]292ITR2259(Raj); RLW2006(4)Raj2803; 2006(4)WLC675
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law along with statement of case by allowing the reference application of the revenue under Section 256(1) by holding that the said question is a question of law that arises out of the Tribunal's appellate order dated 30.11.1989 allowing the appeal of the respondent-assessee in relation to the Assessment Yr. 1984-85 in respect of the claim in question:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that conveyance allowance of Rs.21,705/- received by the assessee from his employer was allowable Under Section 10(14) of the Act2. The respondent-assessee was serving as a Development Officer with the Life Insurance Corporation of India during relevant period and he had received additional conveyance allowance of Rs.21,705/- from his employer. The assessee had claimed this amount as not taxable in his hand under Section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as he had received such allow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-17-2006
Reported in : [2007]289ITR154(Raj)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is by the assessee against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated September 19, 2003. This appeal is confined to the claim of the assessee for deduction of liability of interest that has accrued on outstanding dues under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as well as the Income-tax Act which has been rejected by the Assessing Officer and affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal that unless the liability of interest is discharged in terms of Section 43B(a) of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The controversy is reflected in the following question that has been framed at the time of admitting appeal:Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the interest of Rs. 3,76,654 which has become due on delayed payment of sales tax payable by the assessee as deduction by considering it as 'tax' within the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-26-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1683; 2006(3)WLC513
K.S. Rathore, J. 1. Brief facts of the case are that the non- applicant (respondent) moved an application under Section 3(8)(5) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, the Act of 2001 stating therein that since the applicant Red Cross Society was a corporate body under the Central Act and as such provisions of the Act of 2001 were not attracted and the learned Tribunal was having no jurisdiction by virtue of Section 3 of the Act of 2001.2. The petitioner submitted that the Indian Red Cross Society is a body corporate and was established under Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 (for short, the Act of 1920). As per Section 2 of the Act of 1920, the first members of the society were to be nominated by the persons who immediately before the commencement of the Act were the members of the Joint War Committee, Indian Branch of the order of St. John of Jeru Salem in England and the British Red Cross Society. Section 3 authorized the Committee to appoint the Managing Body of the So...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-27-2006
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
Decided on : Jun-02-2006
Reported in : 2007ACJ1758
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal of the insurance company is directed against the award of M.A.C.T., Kishangarhbas dated 30.4.2005 while deciding the Claim Case No. 178 of 2000 in a road accident which took place on 24.10.2000 at 9 a.m.2. The deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta while going on a motor cycle from Jaipur to Pratap Nagar, Sanganer near Jaipur was hit from back side by a half body truck No. RSM 325 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Jagdish Prasad, respondent No. 1 and as result of the said accident deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta, 36 years of age, lost his life. He was working as a teacher in Government Senior Secondary School and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 10,725.3. Deceased left behind his widow and two young sons aged 5 years and 4 years respectively and old aged mother and father.4. The claim filed before the Tribunal was to the extent of Rs. 65,74,500. The Tribunal after arriving at the finding of rash and negligent driving in favour of claimants proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-21-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2560
Manak Mohta, J.1. These five misc. appeals alongwith cross- objection in Appeal No. 107/97 have arisen out of a single accident, for which, Claim Cases Nos. 178/94, 191/94, 168/94 and 13/95 were preferred by the respective parties before the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur who vide his judgment and award dated 16.9.1996 decided the claim petitions. Since, in all these appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the same are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a Claim Petition No. 178/94 was moved by Smt. Anita Jain w/o Shri Virendra Jain (deceased), Claim Petition No. 191/94 was filed by Smt. Kamla Bai w/o Shri Ratan Lal (deceased), Claim Petition No. 168/94 was filed by Smt. Tara (injured) and Claim Petition No. 13/95 was filed by Nathu (father of deceased Raman) wherein it was stated that on 18.4.1994, Smt. Tara, Shanker, Virendra, Ratanlal and Raman were travelling in a...
Tag this Judgment!