Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1985)ILLJ111Raj
G.M. Lodha J.1. Durante bene placito' ruled the world with waves of 'laissez faire' up to 19th century, Political as well as Industrial revolutions brought new tides of workers emancipation from exploitation resulting in new concepts of 'status', 'security of service', 'releases from bonded labour'. Not to talk of Karl Marx or Lenin, even Abraham Lincoln and Roosvelt pleaded for 'Dignity of Labour', 'Equality', Dueprocess of law, and that resulted in New Deal Legislations, Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, the Founding fathers of the great Indian constitution brought the dream of 'Ravi' true when preamble of the 'Socialist Republic of India' embodied 'Equality' of status' and 'opportunity'. Justice, 'social, economic and political' targets 'followed' by Directives and fundamental rights of equality in Article 14 and equal opportunity in services in Article 16.2. Articulation of 14 and 16 in 1948 and 43A in 1976, whether gave death blow to 'durante bene placito' is even now a billion dollar q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985CriLJ602; 1984()WLN187
S.S. Byas, J.1. Since these two appeals arise out of one and the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, D/- Jan. 10, 1980, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. By the said judgment, accused Mangal Singh was convicted under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment on the first and three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment on the second count. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence while the State in its appeal has prayed for the enhancement of the sentence. The charge against the accused is of committing the murder of his wife and four minor children. The story put forward by the prosecution is grim, sad, tragic a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj104; 1984()WLN291
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. These writ, petitions as per Schedules A & B raise common questions of law, though there may be some, addotopma; features in some of the petitions, a joint request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners M/s. M. Mridul, and I.J. Lodha, on behalf of the petitioner and A.K. Mathur. Additional Advocate General on behalf of the Slate of Rajasthan, that it would be in the interest of justice if they all are heard and decided together. Since I was of the view that the request was fair and reasonable, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.2. All the writ petitioners are claiming agricultural land in various parts of Sri Ganganagar district of Rajasthan State and their long drawn battle relates to the effort of the respondents to either take possession of some land by declaring surplus or refuseallotment under the various laws which would be referred a little later, and the rival efforts of the petitioners to hold on the land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]62CompCas486(Raj)
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. These two appeals have been filed against the award of the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in Accident Claims Case No. 11 of 1977. The accident took place on September 16, 1972. Kumari Sneh Lata was travelling in bus No. RRL 8548 and was coming to Jaipur from Veer Hanuman Samod village. Bus No. RRL 8548 was being driven by Surajnarain, driver. In the south of Chemu village at a distance of one mile, another bus No. RRL 3804 which was being driven by Tarachand, driver, collided with bus No. RRL 8548. Bus No. RRL 8548 after the accident struck a telephone pole. Kumari Sneh Lata who was travelling in bus No. 8548 was injured and her right hand was completely cut and she fell down on the ground.2. A claim for Rs. 1,31,000 was made by Sneh Lata. Bus No RRL 8548 and No. RRL 3804, both are insured with M/s. Anand Insurance Co., Jaipur, a unit of M/s. New India Insurance Co. separately.3. The Tribunal, after recording of the evidence, came to the conclusion that Sneh L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1(1986)ACC254
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These two appeals have been filed against the award of the Accidents Claims Tribunal. Jaipur in accident claim case No. 11 of 1977. The accident took place on 16th September, 1972. Miss Sneh Lata was travelling in bus No. RRL 8548 and was coming to Jaipur from Veer Hanuman Samod village. The bus No. RRL 8548 was being driven by Suraj Narain driver. In the south of Chemu village at a distance of 1 mile, another bus No. RRL 3804 which was being driven by Tara Chand driver, collided with the bus No. RRL 8548. The bus No. RRL 8548 after the accident struck a telephone pole. Sneh Lata who was travelling in bus No, 8548 was injured and her right hand was completely cut and she fell down on the ground.2. A claim of Rs. Rs. 1,31,000/- was made by Sneh Lata. Bus Nos. RRL 8548 and RRL 3804, both, are insured with M/s. Anand Insurance Co. Jaipur, a unit of M/s. New India Assurance Co. separately.3. The Tribunal after recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that Sneh Lata's...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj130
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. These writ petitions raise some common questions of law, so, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. i may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the above writ petitions.3. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (for short 'the RTA') by its resolution dated March 9. 1976 revised the scope of Nagaur, Sujangarh, Ladhu, Khiyala and Ladhu amalgamated route and fixed stage carriages to perform 8 return services. Again the R. T. A. increased the scope from 22:8 to 30:12 vide its resolution dated August 25, 1982. The RTA invited the applications under the vacancy of 8 stage carriage permits vide notification dated October 18, 1982 published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra Part VII, dated November 4, 1982. Against the resolution of the R. T. A. dated August 25. 1982 whereby the scope wasincreased, one of the existing operators, Shri Satya Narain son of Shri Mangharam r/o Sujangarh, Dist. Churu filed a revision petition No. 124/82 before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985(1)WLN237
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. These specials appeal have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 24, 1984 in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1963 of 1983 and 2087 of 1983. Civil Writ Petition No. 1963 of 1983 was filed by Shri. Prageshwar Tiwari and Civil Writ Petition No. 2087 of 1983 was filed by Shri. Ash Karan Agarwal. In both the writ petitions, the said petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') had challenged the appointment of Shri Ganpat Rai as a member of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The learned Single Judge, by his order aforesaid has allowed the writ petitions and has quashed the appointment of Shri Ganpat Rai as a member of the Tribunal and has declared that Shri Ganpat Rai could not have been appointed as the third member of the Tribunal and has declared his post as vacant. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the State has filed Special Appeals Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985(2)WLN290
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks to quash the seniority rules for teachers of the University of Jodhpur resolved by the Syndicate and issued vide notification No. R/SR/1 dated 7-1-1984 (Annx. 9). He had also prayed for quashing the seniority list dated 31-10-1983 in so far as it relates to the respondents No. 2 to 15. He has further sought a declaration to the effect that the petitioner is senior to the respondents No. 2 to 15.2. I may state come relevant facts. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry pursuant to his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide order dated July 13, 1957. His appointment was under the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules. He was confirmed on the said post w.e.f. July 20, 1958. While the petitioners were holding that post, the University of Jodhpur came to be established and all the Colleges located at Jodhpur were made constituent of that University and members of the Rajasth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(1985)ACC1; AIR1986Raj101; [1986]59CompCas714(Raj); 1985(2)WLN240
Kasliwal, J. 1. Learned single Judge by order dated Aug. 9, 1984, has referred all the above appeals to a larger bench for authoritative decision on the question of liability of the Insurance Company under sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in respect of the death or injury caused to persons who travelled in the goods vehicle with the goods or without goods or either in contract of service of the owner of the vehicle or otherwise.2. Learned single Judge has observed :'The accidents cover different species of claims and, it would not be possible to generalise them except to the limited extent that in all such cases, the vehicle, the owner of which is asked to pay compensation, is essentially to be a 'goods vehicle' in which the goods are to be transported and in the course of the accident, the injury is caused or death is caused to a person travelling in that goods vehicle in the capacity either of owner of the goods or representative of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]62STC374(Raj); 1985(2)WLN752
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajas-than Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act'), for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to state the case and refer the following question of law, arising out of the order dated 18th June, 1982, passed in Special Appeal No. 1/80/ST/JU which the Board refused to refer by its order dated 5th November, 1982, on the application under Section 15(1) of the Act.Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned single Bench and double Bench were right in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 5C(2) only for the reason that the assessing authority did not cancel the entry in R. C. whereas dealer has contravened the provision of Section 5C(1) and misused the declaration ?2. Non-petitioner No. 1 (dealer-assessee) is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture of motor radiators, etc., and is a registered d...
Tag this Judgment!