Rajasthan Court July 1995 Judgments
The Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Amar Cha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN318
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'), vide its order dated 5.12.1991, awarded Rs. 31,418,65 P. only as compensation to the Non-Petitioner No. 1 (Workman), Against the said order, petitioners who are employers, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ajmer. The appeal was accompanied with a certificate dated 5.2.1992, issued by the Authority to the effect that the petitioners had deposited the amount payable to the Non-Pet. No. 1. An objection was raised on behalf of the Non-Petitioner No. 1, before the District Judge, Ajmer that as the amount was not deposited by the petitioners within 30 days from the date of order as directed by the Authority, as such, the appeal was not maintainable, The learned District Judge, Ajmer vide his order dated 14.9.1994, dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the amount awarded by, the Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of o...
Tag this Judgment!Sailesh Kumar Singh Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN103
N.K. Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to allow him to take part in the Group Discussion and Personal interviews.2. The petitioner being Master in Computer Application, in pursuance of advertisement published in daily news-paper Hindu (Anx-1) dt. 14.11.1994 applied for general category as per list III with code 43 out of the two other categories with Codes 41 and 42 for SC and ST respectively and he was called for interview subject to condition on 8.5.95 vide Anx. A-2. On 29.5.95 a legal notice was issued to the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the test but he was not permitted to take part in Groep Discussion and Personal Interview held on 1.7.95. Hence this write petition under Article 226.3. On the other hand in response to the notice issued on 19.6.95, the respondents have filed reply raising preliminary objections that the petitioner has misstated the ...
Tag this Judgment!Komal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN404
Y.R. Meena, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the documents on record. It has been submitted that petitioner is father-in-law of deceased and he is in. custody since 8.6.95 He is about 70 years of age. No further investigation is required from. The husband of the deceased is already in jail.2. In the Facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by both the sides, I am inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. to the accused petitioner.3. It is therefore, ordered that the accused petitioners Komal Singh S/o Raj Ram shall be released on bail provided he of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000 (Rupees forty thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 20,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case....
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mst. Hansi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1995
Reported in: I(1997)ACC134; 1996ACJ571; AIR1996Raj71; 1996(1)WLC327
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Learned counsel Shri Loonkar has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs. 25,000/- without holding any inquiry into the matter about the death of the deceased, which took place on the road while driving the motor-cycle.3. Learned counsel Shri Chouhan for the claimants raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this revision petition. He submitted that only appeal lies in view of Section 173 read with Ss. 140 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). He submits that even if revision lies, then also no error of jurisdiction is committed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court should dismiss the revision petition. He also submitted that no inquiry was required to be made by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the behaviour of Ajay, who was alleged to have driving the motor cycle at the time of accident, was such, which support...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. J.N.V. University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj94; 1996WLC(Raj)UC412
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of therespondents quashing the nomination papers filed by the petitioner for Academic Council as the petitioner left entries blank. 2. It is pertinent to note that nomination papers of some of the candidates were also rejected on the same grounds. Out of them, three candidates filed writ petitions in this Court. Miss Kusum Bhandari filed writ petition bearing No. 1857/94 against the respondent-University and others which was allowed by the learned single Judge on 31-8-94 holding that 'the petitioner's nomination paper be accepted and if petitioner secures more or equal votes to the person who is last elected, the petitioner will be declared as elected and will be inducted as a member of the Academic Council'. One joint writ petition bearing No. 1856/94 was also filed by Dr. A. K. Gupta and Dr. B. L. Vaishnav on 13-4-94 which was allowed by another Single Bench on 13-9-94 in terms of the aforesaid decis...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1995
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC515; 1995(2)WLN505
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. Advertisement Annexure-5 was issued by the Secretary, Zila Parisad, Bharatpur, respondent No. 2 inviting applications for the posts of Teacher Gr.III. so as to reach in the office of the said respondent latest by 25th September, 1991. According to the Rules prescribed by the State Government certain marks by way of credit were to be given to the residents of the District concerned (Bharatpur District in the case of the petitioner) and certain marks by way of credit were to be given to the residents of the villages in the District- Bharatpur in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner submitted her application form on 25th September, 1991 and attached therewith the certificate dated 24.9.1991 (Annex. 2) issued by the Administrator of the Gram Panchayat Mesena, Panchayat Samiti-Weir, District- Bharatpur, certifying that the petitioner is the President of village-Khadraya, Panchayat Samitiweir, District-Bharatpur. However, the certificate about the petitioner being the re...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN314
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned P.P. for the state.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel, that Kana Ram Jat (Bijrania) R/o Hudil, district Nagaur mentioned in the First Information Report is a different person than the petitioner, as such, his case becomes at par to that of other accused persons who have been released on bail on the ground that their names do not find place in F.I.R. Learned Counsel contended that co-accused Shankar Lal and Shyam Lal have been released on ball by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that their names are not mentioned in the FIR and that no identification parade was arranged to get them identified further that lathis were recovered from their possession and the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing. It is found that Kana Ram Jat (Bijrania) R/o Hudil is a different person.3. Learned P.P. after seeing the case diary gave a statement that as per the investigating Agency Kana Ram Jat of Hudil is a...
Tag this Judgment!Amba Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN349
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Heard.2. Both these ball applications may be disposed of by a common order as they arise from F.I.R. No. 389/94.3. It appeals that in an incident which took place at 8 a.m. or so on 18.9.94 members of both the parties sustained injuries. One person from each side has also died due to the injuries. In the present case, from the complainant party one Navratan has died while from the side of the accused Ram Narain has died.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the incident took place on a dispute about water channel from a common well whereby the fields of both the parties are irrigated. It was also contended that the members of the accused party in the present case acted in exercise of right of private defence of person and the report made by them is earlier in time.5. After going through the F.I.R. of this case, as well as, the F.I.R. of the cross case and taking into consideration that one person from each side has died and some persons have been inj...
Tag this Judgment!Sankla Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ342; 1996(1)WLC728
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Today, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4148/92 -- Sankla Ram v. State of Rajasthan and another is listed for admission and another writ petition No. 4046/92 - Karan Singh and another is listed for orders. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and also looking into the urgency in the matter, these writ petitions are being heard together on merits 4o dispose them off finally at admission and orders stage by a composite order.2. These two writ petitions are directed against the notice (Annx. 4) in case of Sankla Ram and notice (Annx. 3) in the case of Karan Singh issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Pali under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1975'). By these notices Annx. 3 and 4, the petitioners have been called upon to appear before the Additional District Magistrate, Pali and if they so desire, to tender an explanation in writing in respect of the all...
Tag this Judgment!Kesar Devi @ Kanti Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: 1995(51)ECC66
V.K. Singhal, J.1. Initially the petitioner had challenged the validity of the provision of Smugglers & foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called as SAFEMA Act, 39th, 40th and 42nd Amendments in the Constitution, but on January 2, 1991, the relief prayed in clauses 4 and 5 of prayer was not pressed and therefore the present writ petition was listed before this Bench. The arguments restricted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are three-fold, namely-(1)(i) that whenever challenge is made regarding forfeiture of the property under the SAFEMA Act, the court is competent to examine the orders passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as the COFEPOSA Act), (ii) that the order of the Competent Authority for detention under the COFEPOSA Act is bad in law as the grounds on which the order has been passed are the same which were considered by the Advisory Board while ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »