Rajasthan Court May 1993 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.
Vimal Kumar Vs. Bhilwara Wooltax Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas286(Raj); 1994(3)WLC323; 1993WLN(UC)231
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The official liquidator has filed this miscellaneous (company) application in Company Petition No. 12 of 1988 praying as under :(i) That this hon'ble court, after confirmation of the jurisdiction of Bhilwara, from the Registrar of this hon'ble court may kindly transfer the file relating to the S. B. Company Petition No. 12 of 1988 in which the hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, passed the winding up order dated August 10, 1990, to the hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.(ii) The official liquidator may be permitted to make necessary submission before the hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur to link up the S. B. Company Petition No. 12 of 1988 with the S. B. Company Petition No. 2 of 1989 and also to ratify the action of official liquidator and all the orders passed by this hon'ble court on the various miscellaneous applications filed by the official liquidator before this hon'ble court from time ...
Ghulam Mustafa Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: 1995CriLJ266; 1993(3)WLC653
ORDER1. This is a Habeas Corpus Petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence awarded to him if the set off 'to which the petitioner is entitled under Sec. 428 Cr. P.C. in respect of the period of pre-trial detention is taken into consideration.2. First the facts which are these. The petitioner as per his own case was arrested on October 1, 1981 in connection with a case registered against him under Sec. 395,397,120B, 402/420' IPC and he remained in jail until he Was enlarged on bail on February 23,1982 in Sessions case No. 7/1982. The pre-trial detention period of the petitioner in the aforesaid case was as under-- From October 1 1981 =4months 19days to February 23, 1982 After the release on bail the petitioner was arrested in some other case under Sec. 307 IPC on June 19, 1983 and remained in jail till June 20, 1984 in sessions case No. 34/1984 and therefore the period of his denetion in that case was 12 months and 1 day. So far as the first ...
Lalu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)224
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the respondents may be restrained from removing from the land in question.2. The petitioner is a resident of Gram Mohanpura presently residing at Bagawas district Barmer. In village Bagawas infornt of Patwar House petitioner is having a small piece of land. In village Bagawas Khasra No. 749/1 measuring 25 bighas of the land was converted into a urban land for allotment to the Gram Panchayat Bagawas. The then Surpanch Shri Tej Karan on the application moved by the petitioner on 9.6.1991 allotted a piece of land 30 x 45 Ft. free of cost and same was given to the petitioner and the petitioner establish a floor (chakki). Thereafter in the meeting of the Gram Panchyat on 10.6.1991 this resolution was affirmed and the petitioner was allotted this piece of land in a regular manner on 10.6.1991. The petitioner constructed a small room with the stone slabs and iron sheets and he also started the floor mill (chakki). Some res...
Krishan Gopal Tiwari Vs. State of Rajasthan Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ400Raj
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by the order dated, April 24, 1983, was appointed as work-charged employee on daily wages of Rs. 9/-. The daily wages were increased from time-to-lime. He worked on work-charged basis for a period of two years and, therefore, he was made semi-permanent Helper with effect from April 1, 1985, and was placed in the minimum of the regular pay scale applicable to the semi-permanent Helper. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was made semi-permanent Helper in the work-charged establishment and was given the minimum of the regular pay scale for the semipermanent status-holder Helper but actually the work of the post of the Lower Division Clerk was taken from the petitioner since the date of his initial appointment In the year 1990, a Circular dt. August 16, 1990 was issued by the Additional Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Rajas-than, Jaipur, in which it was stated thai 50% of the posts of the Lower Division Clerks may be filled-up from amon...
Rup Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)219
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All these writ petitions mentioned in Schedules A and B are disposed of by this common order as they involve common question of law and facts. However, for the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of Rup Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 3807 of 1992) are taken into consideration.2. The petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that the respondents may be directed to give possession of the land in dispute to the petitioners which is shown in the Schedule appended to the writ petition. The petitioners have further prayed that the respondents may be directed not be allot this land to any other persons till the decision of the writ petition.3. The petitioners are residents of district Bikaner and Sri Ganganagar. The petitioners are agriculturists by profession and most of them are landless persons and are domicile persons of the State of Rajasthan. It is alleged that they are entitled for...
Sidhraj Dhadda Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj68; 1993(3)WLC609
ORDERK.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This public interest litigation relates to functioning of the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and other Government hospitals. The petitioner has made serious allegations against its functioning including that patients have died in the hospital because of wrong diagnosis and carelessness. In paragraphs 1 to 20 of the writ petition, instances have been cited mentioning different cases in which either the patients died or were incapacitated because of negligence of the doctors. The petitioner also alleged that the wife of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma of the Rajasthan High Court died due to not giving of a proper treatment at the proper time. Many other irrgularities alleged were relating to purchase of machines by the S.M.S. Hospital for the personal gain of doctors. The petitioner also alleged that patients used to be recommended for getting pathological test done by the Diagnostic Laboratories situated in the neighbourhood instead of rendering services by the doctor...
Mahendra Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ581Raj; 1993(2)WLC356; 1993WLN(UC)342
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. Grievance made by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the award passed by the Labour Court Jodhpur on April 30, 1991 in Case No. 70 of 1989 directing his reinstatement with full back wages, has not been implemented by the Municipal Council so far. 2. In the writ petition the petitioner has made following prayers:- '(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent may be directed to make compliance of the award Ann.1 by taking the petitioner on duty and to make payment of back wages. (b) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (c) Costs be allowed to the petitioner.' 3. The petitioner has stated that against the award dated April 30, 1991 Municipal Council, Jodhpur filed Writ Petition No. 564/92. On April 20, 1992 this Court passed an order in accordance with the provisions of Section 17B of the...
Maghraj Calla Vs. Kajodi Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj11
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. The revision raises an interesting issue. It arises in the following circumstances.2. The respondent has filed a suit against the petitioner, then an advocate, for damages, on allegations that he was negligent in discharge of his duties qua the plaintiff as client; as, he failed to act with due diligence and promptitude, after brief for filing an appeal to the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') was entrusted to him in respect of an order compulsorily retiring the plaintiff from the State services. According to the plaintiff, due to negligent conduct of the advocate-defendant, the appeal could not be filed in time, which was eventually dismissed as time-barred by the Tribunal and, later on, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed by this Court on 20th October, 1980. It may also be noticed here that, in the first instance, in the a...
Sinchai Kamgar Union Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)90
1. The petitioner union is a registered union. The services of the workers of the union, named out in the Schedule at page 6-A, who were working at Som Kamla Amba Project, Sub-Division-I, Dungarpur, were terminated vide order dated 12.6.84. Dissatisfied with the order Annexure. 1, Annexure. 3, Annexure. 4 and Annexure. 5, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the termination of the services of its members mentioned in the Schedule at Pate 6-A. The order terminating the services of the members of the petitioner association has been challenged on the ground that the members of the petitioner association have served for more that 240 days and, therefore, their services could have been terminated only as per the provisions of Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As the mandatory provisions of Section 25FF of the Act, 1947, were not complied with, while terminating the services of the member of the petitioner association, therefore, the orders Annexure. 1...
Hanuman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)501
J.R. Chopra, J.1. In this case reply has been adopted from Writ Petition No. 3108/92. After hearing arguments for three days, this case is being decided.2. The petitioner(s), who have filed this writ petition are purported transferee(s) of the Pong Dam Oustee(s). They have filed this writ petition prior to the insertion of Rule 8AAA in the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony), Rules, 1972 (shortly Rules, 1972) which has come into force w.e.f. 3.9.1992. This fact transpires from the reply filed on behalf of the State Government. In view of this amendment in Rules, 1972, the right of the purported transferee(s) in the land, which was initiated allotted to she Pong Dam Oustee(s) has yet to be determined3. Under Rule 8AAA the State Government has ordered for suo motu review of cancellation of allotment order on account of breach of Rule 6(4), 6(5) or 6(6) and the allotment order made under Rule 6A of the Rules, 1972.4. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »