Rajasthan Court September 1988 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.
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Kanta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1988
Reported in: I(1990)ACC181
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This is a Misc. Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the State against the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur, in the compensation claim case No. 3 of 1985 awarding compensation to the extent of Rs. 67,676/-with costs of Rs. 250/-.2. The brief facts giving rise to the Civil Misc. Appeal are that a claim was filed by Kanta wife of deceased Amar Singh, on the allegation that deceased Amar Singh was working under Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Survey Sub-Division, Balotra and Executive Engineer, Irrigation Field Investigation Division, Jodhpur. It is alleged that her husband deceased Amar Singh, when posted at Balotra was a driver in the Field Investigation and was drawing a sum of Rs. 780/- per month. The Executive Engineer, Field Investigation, Jodhpur, by his letter dated 14.12.1984, directed him to attend the 8th Lok Sabha elections along with vehicle No. RSN 1338...
Tayyab Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN255
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. The question referred to this Bench for decision is the following:Whether an adverse entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the Government Servant will fall under Clause (v) of Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 and the Service Appellate Tribunal will have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in the matter?2. The occasion for making this reference arose when the Division Bench before which this petition came up for hearing was inclined to taken the view that an adverse entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of a Government Servant falls within the ambit of Sub-clause (v) of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). This was also the view of an earlier Single Bench in the State of Rajasthan v. Narendra Singh Verma (1986) 1 Judicial Surveyor 41, but a contrary view was taken by another Division Be...
Ghalib HussaIn Vs. Bilqees
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)514
S.S. Byas, J.1. This appeal filed 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against an order of the learned Judg-of the Family Court, Jaipur dated April 12, 1988 by which the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs 200/- per month to the respondent for her interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings.2. Relevant facts may be recalled in short. The respondent there in after to be mentioned as the wife) submitted an application 125 Cr.PC in the couit below against the appellant, (here in after to be referred to as the husband) for getting maintenance. The parties are Muslims. The wife is a post graduate while the husband is only a matriculate. The marriage between them was solemnised on 2-12-1985. How ever, they could remain together only for sometime and since January, 1985 the wife is living with her parents. The income of the husband was stated to be Rs 4 000/- per month. The wife demanded a sum of Rs 400/ by way of interim maintenance so long the proceeding remain...
Krishna Lime Works Vs. Presiding Officer/Workmen's Compensation Commis ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ302Raj; 1988(2)WLN598
P.C. Jain, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25th May, 1988, passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur in Case No. W.C.C.F.6/85, wherein Koili, Munni, Lalli and Keshar have filed a compensation claim against Kanhaiya Lal son of Murlidhar in the Court of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner M/s. Krishna Lime Works, Chaksu is running an establishment for manufacturing of lime, situated at Kotkhawada Road, Malorai Ki Bagichi, Chaksu, of which Kanhaiya Lal is the sole proprietor. The case of the non-petitioners before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner against M/s. Krishna Lime Works, Chaksu was that deceased Gaindilal was a workman in the petitioner's establishment. He was drawing wages of Rs. 600/- p.m. and during the course of employment he died. The claim was filed by the respondents who are ...
Janki Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)285
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31-3-1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran by which, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:Janki Lal-Under Section 302, IPC and all others under Section 302/149, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine three months rigorous imprisonment.Heera Lal-Under Section 307, IPC and all others under Section 307/149, IPC and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine one month rigorous imprisonment. All the accused appellants under Section 148, IPC sentenced to one year RI; All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Banshi Lal (PW 13) lodged a report on 22-10-1985 at 4 pm. at Police Station, Chhipa Badod alleging that in the day at 1 p.m. he and all the village people assembled at the Chabutra of Hanumanji for Pooja on the occasion of Vijay Dashmi. Previously some quarrel...
Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN595
S.S. Byas, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the relief claimed is for issuing directions to the respondents to forth with handover the charge of office of Sarpanch village Panchayat Kaliasar (District Jhunjhunu) to the petitioner.2. As per averments disclosed in the petition, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch village Panchayat Kaliasar in the elections which took place on July 6, 1988. After his election he was duly administered oath of office by the Returning Officer. Respondent No. 5 Shri Bhagwan Singh is the ex-Sarpanch of village Panchayat Kaliasar. He also contested the election but lost it. Charge of the office of Sarpanch has not been banded-over to the petitioner by respondent No. 5 Bhagwan Singh. The petitioner approached the Collector and the Additional District Development Officer, JhunJhunu to seek their help to get the charge handed-over to him. But the attempts proved abortive. He has therefore approached this Court to seek the directions m...
Ramdhan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)232
1. Heard. Perused the writ petition and Annexures 1 and 2.2. Learned Government Advocate prays for time to file reply. The prayer is rejected.3. The survival of democracy rests on the pillars of the confidence of the electrol and impediment in the matter of choosing the representatives or asking them to quit the office on account of no confidence. The Collector vide Annexure 2 had sent a telegram that the meeting which was fixed for consideration of note of no confidence on 12-9-1988 has been adjourned till further orders. Such order cannot be passed by any matter for the indefinite postponment of the meeting. The respondents are directed to fix up the meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence, within a period 5 weeks from today.4. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above.No order as to costs....
Akhilesh NaraIn Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)408a
M.B Sharma, J.1. There appears to be some inter se dispute between the Mining Department and the Forest Department. That dispute appears to have been raised after grant of the mining lease, because the mining lease to the petitioner was granted only after no objection from the Forest Department. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease of mineral limestone situated near village Raisala, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh for an area measuring 53 2 Hectares on May 16, 1977. There was deemed rejection of application of petitioner for the grant of mining lease, the same having not been disposed of till the statutory period of nine mouths and, therefore, the petitioner filed revision petition before the State Government, which was allowed with a direction to dispose of the application within 100 days. Again, within the aforesaid period of 100 days the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease was not decided and again there was a deemed rejection. Again there was a revision to the ...
ishwar Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)534
M.B. Sharma, J.1. In each of the above numbered two writ petitions the orders of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Mining Department passed in exercise of the powers of revision conferred under Rule 64 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 and now Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 are under challenge.2. We are of the opinion that under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 a revision lies to the Central Government against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Raj Mines Department made in exercise of his power under either Rule 64 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1977 or under Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986. This Court has taken a consistent view that the remedy of revision to the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is an alternative efficacious rem...
Raghunand Prasad and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ42Raj; 1988(2)WLN295
Farooq Hassan, J.1. The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, carrying on the business of cutting and processing of marbles at Makarana, District Nagpur, was informed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur (respondent No. 2), by his letter dated 7th December, 1965, that the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity 'the P.F. Act'), and the scheme framed thereunder have been made applicable to the petitioner's business and further that, on making inquiries, the petitioner's establishment revealed to come under the scheduled head 'Electrical, Mechanical and General Engineering Products'. Therefore, under the aforesaid letter (annexure 1), the petitioner was directed to deduct provident fund contribution from the wages of the eligible employees with effect from September, 1965 onwards. The petitioner contested the direction issued under annexure 1, and in its reply (annexure 2) to that, it stated that the Provident Funds Act was not a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »