Rajasthan Court December 1997 Judgments
Sona Builders and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Raj)712
M. P. SINGH, J. :The learned single judge by his order dt. 18th April, 1994 dismissed three writ petitions - (1) Writ Petition No. 3492/93, Rajendra Giriraj Prasad Tiwari vs. Union of India; (2) Writ Petition No. 4667/93 M/s Sona Builders vs. Union of India; and (3) Writ Petition No. 1093/94 M/s Sona Builders vs. Union of India.Three Special Appeals which have come up for hearing, are (1) DB Civil Special Appeal No. 320/94 - M/s Sona Builders vs. Union of India arising out of Writ No. 4667/93; (2) Special Appeal No. 585/96 - Rajendra Giriraj Prasad Tiwari vs. Union of India arising out of Writ Petition No. 3492/93 and (3) Special Appeal No. 377/94 - M/s Sona Builders vs. Union of India arising out of Writ Petition No. 1093/94. They are being disposed of by a common order as identical facts and similar questions of law are involved.2. Writ Petition No. 3492/93 was filed by the vendor Rajendra Giriraj Prasad Tiwari for quashing of the show cause notice dt. 21st May, 1993 under s. 269UD(1...
Tag this Judgment!Uda Ram Vs. Central State Farm and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj186; 1998(2)WLC256; 1998(1)WLN560
ORDER B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This review petition has been filed by the applicant Uda Ram against the judgment and order dated 21-8-1997 passed in the S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 311/1989 on the ground that the relief claimed by him in the writ petition had not been considered as the petitioner had claimed the benefit not only of regularisation but also challenged the order dated 20-1-1989 by which the services of the petitioner on ad hoc basis had been terminated and he also claimed the benefit of the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. 2. None is present for the applicant-petitioner. Heard Mr. N. M. Lodha and Mr. M. S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The said judgment and order dated 21-8-97 was passed after hearing Mr. R. S. Saluja, learned counsel for the applicant petitioner and it was disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by this Court earlier in other connected writ petition. It has been pointed out by Mr. Lodha that the relief claime...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Archana Patni Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC1; 1998(1)WLN467
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 10.11.1997 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3753/1997 by which the prayer of the appellant against the transfer order dated 23.9.1997 has been rejected.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case reveal that the appellant, who is an Ayurvedic Doctor and serving with the respondents, has been posted in Sri Ganganagar, where her husband is also posted as Psychic Consultant in Govt. General Hospital. She has been transferred from Sri Ganganagar to Jodhpur vide order dated 23rd Sept., 1997 contained in Annex. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant challenged the said transfer order in the said writ petition on various grounds inter alia that her transfer was in contravention of the ]Govt. policy, which provided for posting of both the spouses together. Transfer to a distance of five hundred...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: II(1998)DMC566; 1998(3)WLC636
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.2. Since the persons arrayed as accused in the case were not summoned by the learned Magistrate as he had dismissed petitioner's complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, it was not considered necessary to issue notices to respondent Nos. 2 to 5.3. The relevant facts are that Kamlesh, the daughter of Ramesh Chand, complainant-petitioner, was married to Ram Babu, respondent No. 5, r/o Faridabad, Haryana, on 12.7.1989. It was alleged that her husband and other in-laws harassed and treated Smt. Kamlesh with cruelty for demand for dowry and they turned her out in the year 1991 after giving her a beating. Kamlesh was got examined on 6.10.1991 by the complainant-petitioner at Dholpur. It was further alleged that Kamlesh gave birth to a child also at Dholpur. Based on these facts the petitioner had filed a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate at Dholpur. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed such complain...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1712; 1998(1)WLN462
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This habeas corpus petition has been preferred by Bhanwarial against whom an order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (to be hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act) has been issued on 17-10-96 by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India directing his detention in Central Prison, Bombay. The impugned order has not been served on the petitioner. He has invoked jurisdiction of this Court on the facts that he is a permanent resident of village Dhansa in Distt. Jalore and also in possession of agricultural land and that his shop is situate in the village Dhansa within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It has been stated that on 10-11-95, the officers of the Enforcement Directorate searched the business premises and residential premises of the petitioner at Bombay in his absence and his nephew was taken in custody and after employing third degree methods statement of his nephew was recor...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC763; 1997(2)WLN701
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a unit of petitioner No. 1 engaged in the business of manufacturing Ordinary Portland Cement and Pozzolana Cement at Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh. Petitioner No. 2 has been registered Under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1970). Petitioner No. 2 has been engaging contractors, who have been licensed Under Section 12 of the Act of 1970 in the process of loading of filled cement bags in wagons/trucks wherein loaders, chutemen and bag arranger-cum- supplier are employed and in the work of sweeping/cleaning of spilled cement occurring in the process of packing and loading and unloading of other raw materials such as gunny bags, gypsum, coal etc. the petitioners have been engaging duly licensed contractors in the aforementioned work. As per the petitioners, the main idea of permitting contr...
Tag this Judgment!Shesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC740; 1997(2)WLN691
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. A short but important question involved in this petition is : Whether denial of appointment as a constable in State Police Service to the petitioner on the ground of suppression of material fact about pendency of a criminal case against him involving moral turpitude can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable calling for issuance of a mandamus by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ?2. Undisputed factual position is that pursuant to an advertisement of 69 vacancies of constable for the District of Dholpur, the petitioner applied for the same. In the written test conducted on August 18, 1996, he was declared successful. He was also found physically fit and provisionally selected. However, on police verification of his character and antecedents it was found that a criminal case No. 228/93 under Section 394 IPC was pending against him in which he was facting trial before a competent Court but this fact was deliberately suppressed by the petitioner in Colum...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Magna Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ771
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the award of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 30.11.1992 passed in WC Case No. 34 of 1989, decreeing the claim and making an award of Rs. 78,087.60, with 50 per cent penalty thereon amounting to Rs. 39,043.80 together with 6 per cent interest on the compensation amounting to Rs. 23,567.47; holding that the appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd. along with owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 2, are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation to the claimant Magna Ram, present respondent No. 1.2. It is pertinent to mention that the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 2, has also filed a cross-appeal before this Court against the aforesaid award dated 30.11.1992. The question of law and facts involved in appeal and cross-appeal are inter-linked, therefore, I propose to decide the appeal as well as the cross-appeal by a common judgment.3. Before I proceed to decide appeal and the cross-appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bhawan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3705; 1998(3)WLC250
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking the termination of the criminal proceedings before the Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.P.E. Cases) Jaipur Distt. Jaipur against the petitioner (and a few others) in Cri. Case No. 1 of 1987.2. The relevant facts are these-During the years 1981-82 the petitioner was working as Additional Manager (Quality Assessment) with Instrumentation Ltd. Kota, which is a Govt. of India Undertaking. On the basis of source information RC/1 -84-CBIDSPE CIU (P) the officer in charge of SPE/CBI Police Station, Jaipur Rajasthan registered on March 28, 1984 a case against the petitioner and some other officers of the said undertaking and some persons of certain firms/concerns. On investigation the petitioner and other co-accused were found to have entered into a criminal conspiracy to take the properties of the said undertaking by forging fal se documents. A police report for commission of offences under Sub-Section 120B, 417, 42...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC170; 1998(1)WLN558
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.By this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. it is prayed that the criminal appeal No. 16/92 Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan filed under Section 63 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 be transferred from the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Cases cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The ground on which the prayer for transfer of the appeal has been made is that Sub-section (3) of Section 63 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act requires the appeal to be filed before the Court of Sessions and, therefore, it is the District and Sessions Judge only who can hear and dispose of the appeal and an Additional Sessions Judge, who is of the same rank as the Special Judge appointed under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act cannot hear th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »