Rajasthan Court January 1994 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.
Bhimsen Vs. Jaipur Development Authority
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1994
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ1003Raj; 1994(1)WLC654; 1994(1)WLN545
Mohini Kapur, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his retrenchment without following the provisions of the Industrials Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'). The petitioner was initially appointed as a Beldar on daily wages in the month of August, 1984. According to him, his services were orally terminated by the Secretary of the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'IDA') in August, 1985. No termination order was issued to him and at the same time he was not given the retrenchment compensation before his services were terminated. The matter was taken up before the Conciliation Officer but no progress could be made as the respondent did not appear and the conciliation proceedings resulted in a failure report given on 17th April, 1989. After serving a notice for demand of justice the petitioner filed this writ petition on 11th July, 1989. It may be mentioned here that the State Government referred ...
Mangti Ram Vs. Onkar Sahai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC142; 1994(1)WLN300
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The only contention, which requires to be decided in this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ('the code'), is as to whether the learned trial court rightly decided Issue No. 6, by holding that the plaintiffs-appellants were estopped from challenging the sale, made by the defendant-respondents No. 6, Brijlal, in favour of the defendants-respondents No. 1 to 5, by claiming the right of pre-emption, to purchase the property in dispute.2. The brief facts are as under: The property in dispute, along with the property, belonging to the appellants-plaintiffs, formed part of the joint property, earlier owned by Shri Sawaldas, the father and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondent No. 6, Brijlal, and Shri Gaddarmal, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-plaintiffs. Sawarmal and Gaddarmal partitioned the property in dispute, and the property in dispute came to the share of Sawaldas, whereas, the other property came to the share of G...
Manish Newton Vs. Lachoo College of Science and Technology, Jodhpur an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj182; 1994(1)WLC513; 1994(1)WLN10
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner has sought the review of the order dated 30-8-1993, passed by this Court, on the ground that at the time of argument in the writ petition, his counsel could not point-out the important provisions of law on the subject, which have a material bearing on the question, which has resulted in failure of justice. The order has, also, been sought to be reviewed on the ground that the relevant case-law on the subject, laid down by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court, could not be brought to the notice of the Court which have a binding nature.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a combined reading of the statutes 9B and 7 makes it clear that the Academic Council requires jurisdiction to legislation the subject only when there is a recommendation of the Equivalence Committee and the Statutes are always subject to the provisions of the Act and the Ordinances are subject to the Act and the Statutes and, therefore, the Statute...
Gharib Ram Sharma Vs. Daulat Ram Kashyap and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1994
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas267(Raj)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This company appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), with a prayer to quash the order dated July 30, 1993, passed by the Company Law Board in Company Petition No. 6 of 1993, Gharib Ram Sharma v. Danlat Ram Kashyap.2. Respondent No. 3 is a private limited company incorporated with the object to carry on business as manufacturers, exporters, importers and dealers in plywood, hardwood, veneer, blocks of flooring and various other purposes. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 4 lakhs only divided into 4,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. These shares are divided into two groups, one led by respondent No. 2 and the other led by respondent No. 1. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were the first two directors of the company and this position continued till May 7, 1991. On May 7, 1991, respondent No. 2 ceased to be a director because he absented himself from three consecutive meetings of the board of directors held on Decemb...
Ravindra Narayan and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1994
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas925(Raj); 1994(1)WLN532
N.L. Tibrewal, J. 1. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners challenge the Criminal Complaint No. 47 of 1991, pending against them, before the Special Court of the Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the offence under Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Companies Act'). At the relevant time, all the four petitioners are said to be the directors of Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminates Ltd., incorporated under the Companies Act. Mr. P.C. Maheshwari was the managing director of the said company.2. The non-petitioner, i.e., Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, filed a complaint under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act for committing default in complying with the requirements of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 220. Sub-sections (1) and (2) require three copies of balance-sheet, etc., to be filed with the Registrar, within the stipulated time mentioned therein. Sub-section (3) provide...
Nazir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ1059Raj; 1994(1)WLC414; 1994(1)WLN553
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner by quashing the notice of retrenchment dated December 30, 1986. (Annex. 2).2. The petitioner entered in the service of the respondents as a Chowkidar on February 1, 1984 on the daily wages of Rs. 11/-, The appointment of the petitioner was on verbal instructions. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the order dated December 30, 1986 (Annex. 2).3. The petitioner contended that he being in service for the last more than two years had become a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and that he could not be retrenched without following the provisions of Section 25F (a) and (b) of the Act. He claimed that he was entitled to be declared as semi-permanent under Rule - 3(3) of the Rajasthan Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to...
Arajpatrit Rajya Karmachari Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLC461; 1994(1)WLN34
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the Consumer Protection Forum, District Ajmer, which has passed the impugned order dated 21.10.92 has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of a member of co-operative society with regard to cancellation of his membership and consequently non-allotment of land.2. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides under Section 3 that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The jurisdiction of the District Forum has been prescribed Under Section 11 which provides to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed, does not exceed rupees one lakh then a complaint can be instituted in a district forum. Under Section 17 the jurisdiction of the State Commission was to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed excee...
H HusaIn and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN237
V.S. Dave, J.1. The learned Public Prosecutor wants to call for the case diary. I regret that this is not a case where time may be granted for sending for the case diary as it is a case where six accused persons have been alleged to have committed offences under Sections 147, 325, 307, 451 and 171, I.P.C. A perusal of the injury report discloses two contusions whose dimensions are not more than 3 cm in any case, one abrasion 1 1/2 cm and complaining of chest pain which of course is due to fracture of the ribs. The author of this injury is not known. With the aforesaid minor injuries on the person of the injured it would be too risky and rather venture some to attract Section 147 with the intention of causing death as if the man would have died the case would have resulted in murder. The case which is barely beyond travelling Section 323 can by no means a case where diary may be permitted to be called for.2. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case. I am inclined to grant bail ...
Gopikishan Parihar Vs. Joint Secretary, Cofeposa and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN111
ORDER:(a) Mr. J.P. Joshi has emphatically argued that in this case, the contraband silver slabs and the truck were seized form the possession of Umeda Ram on 1.8.92 but the detention order Annex.l was passed on 23.12.93 i.e. after a lapse of four months and twenty three days; that this delay has not been explained by the respondents and in such circumstances, the nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the necessity for detention of the petitioner had clearly been snapped and, therefore, the impugned order for detention is liable to be quashed on this ground alone, especially when the petitioner was neither concerned with the contraband silver nor was the owner of the seized truck.(b) On the other hand, Mr. P.P. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is true that smuggled silver was seized on 1.8.92 but thereafter the matter was thoroughly investigated and proper documentary evidence was collected and after detailed investigation, the Sponsoring...
Aadinath Textiles Vs. Riico and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN145
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order passed by the respondents Ex.16 dated 26th May, 1981 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to handover the possession of remaining lan i.e. 5,250 Section mtrs to petitioner allotted by the respondents.2. Petitioner firm was allotted a land measuring 9250 sq. mtrs. in Basni Industrial Area, II Phase, Jodhpur consisting of plots E-215, F-270 and 271 by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Co-operation Ltd. (here inafter referred to as 'RICCO') by lease deed dated 27th September, 1978. At the time of allotment petitioner was not given the possession of the land and there were some occupants over a portion of this land. Petitioner therefore, requested the respondents for puttying in possession but possession was not given. Petitioner by various communications dated 5th June 1979, 6th June, 1979, 8th September, 1979 and 13th September, 197...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »