Rajasthan Court October 1971 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gem Cinema and anr. Vs. B.C. Ojha and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN461
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition filed by Gem Cinema raises an important question about the scope of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and it arises out of the following circumstances.2. Respondent Chhitarmal was an employee of the petitioner's firm. He applied on 27th August, 1969, for two days leave to attend his party convention at Delhi on 1st and 2nd September, 1966. This application of the respondent was rejected by the management on the ground that there was shortage of gate-keepers and, therefore, Chhitarmal could not be spared. Chitarmal again sent an application for leave on 29th August, on the ground of illness. This application was accompanied by a medical certificate. The management suspected a foul play in this matter and, therefore, sent a letter to Chhitarmal asking him to produce a certificate of a Government authorised medical practitioner. When the messenger of the petitioner's firm went to deliver the said letter he discovered that Chhitrmal had already left f...
Devilal Vs. Himat Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Raj39
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This Order may be treated as one in continuation of my order dated 21-9-71 whereby I held that the appeal has abated aua the interest of the respondent Himmatram deceased, who died during the pendency of this appeal. The case was then adjourned to enable the parties to argue the question whether the appeal has abated as a whole2. It may be observed that it is the admitted case of the parties that all the defendant-respondents had jointly taken a contract for construction of a Town Hall of Udaipur as partners even though the contract was sanctioned by the City Corporation of Udaipur in the names of defendants Himmatram and Narottam Swaroop only. It is further borne out from the allegations contained in the plaint and admitted by the defendants that while entering into a subcontract with the plaintiff-appellant Devilal, the defendant Kanaiyalal acted as an agent for the rest of the partners. It further appears from para No. 12 of the plaint that the partnership was for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›