Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (2.93 seconds)

Ram Bilas vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 1980

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has completely failed to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. He further submitted that deceased Mst. Manbhari who died in this accident was herself negligent in crossing the road from left to right. The driver did not know the fact that she will suddenly cross the road from left to right. He also submitted that it has been admitted by the Investigating Officer that there was a steep near the place of occurrence it has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that because of this steep usually the vehicles become slow. Due to this circumstance it can be inferred that the speed of the bus was below the normal speed. Learned Counsel in support of his arguments referred to the cases-Mahadeo Hari Lokre v. State of Maharashtra , Bhanwarlal v. The State of Rajasthan 1970 RLW 68 and Bhagwan v. The State of Raiasthan 1979 Cr. LR (Raj) page 422.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Triloki Lal Meena vs State Of Raj And Ors on 14 March, 2011

It is, however, made clear that with the acceptance of the writ petition, petitioner would not be entitled for authorisation of fair price shop in place of respondent No.5, rather, respondents No.1 to 4 would be at liberty to issue authorisation in favour of others, as per policy. The petitioner will, however, be entitled to maintain one-fourth share as allotted to him. This is in view of the fact that the Government has allotted one-half share divided it in two and even 3 parts depending on the number of ration cards. Aforesaid action of the Government has been upheld in the case of Nemi Chand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4026/2008, decided today.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M N Bhandari - Full Document
1