Rajasthan Court August 1997 Judgments
Bank of India Vs. Saraf Synthetics (Raj) Ltd. (In Liquidation) and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas484(Raj); 1997(3)WLC572
N.L. Tibrewal, J. 1. The Bank of India has filed this petition for grant of leave under Section 446(1) to continue/proceed with the pending recovery proceedings in Petition No. 462 of 1995 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, against Saraf Synthetics (Rajasthan) Ltd., the company in winding up (briefly referred to as 'the company'). The applicant-bank is a secured creditor and initially it had filed Civil Suit No. 993 of 1994 against the company and others in the High Court of Delhi (Original Civil Jurisdiction) for the recovery of Rs, 2,41,14,123 with future interest and costs of the suit. On establishment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), the suit was transferred to it where recovery proceedings are pending. In S. B. Company Petition No. 10 of 1992, the winding up of the company has been ordered on November 3, 1995, hence, by this petition the bank is seeking leave to continue recovery proceedings before the Tribunal.2. The question that calls for ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Vijay Vs. Lan Exda Ind. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas116(Raj)
J.C. Verma, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that she had applied for purchase of the public shares from respondent No. 1, Lan Exda Industry, 201, II Floor, Babukhan Estate, Bashir Bagh, Hyderabad. She along with Meena Devi had sent an amount of Rs. 2,500 on May 26, 1993, for purchasing 200 shares each. The petitioner and Meena had also approached the consumer courts but it was held by the consumer court that disputes raised by the petitioner are not maintainable before the consumer court. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction to respondent No. 2 to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 621 of the Companies Act for proceeding against respondent No. 1 under Section 73(2B) of the Companies Act. It is stated that the petitioner had approached the SEBI as well in this regard but no action had been taken by the SEBI.2. Written statement has been filed by respondent No. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent No. 1, A reply on behalf of respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ramavtar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ973Raj; 1997(3)WLC656
Tibrewal, J. 1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the judgment and order dated December 7, 1992 of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1755/87, holding termination of respondent's service to be illegal and void with further direction to reinstate him with all consequential benefits from the date of judgment. For back wages for the period from the date of termination till the date of Judgment it was observed that the respondent shall be free to take steps under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. For deciding the questions raised before us, it is desirable to note out the facts and circumstances leading to this appeal. The respondent was an employee of the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for short the Corporation). He was appointed as a bus conductor initially on daily wage basis vide Order dated June 28,1986. The...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishanlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ452
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this appeal under Section 378, Cr.P.C., the State of Rajasthan has questioned the acquittal of the respondents Kishanlal and Mst. Poora (now dead) by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated 1-4-83.2. The facts of the case are that Sulochana, daughter of Chandulal (PW1) was married to Kishanlal respondent No. 1 on 17-7-75. There arose some dispute between Chandulal and father of respondent Kishanlal regarding the amount paid in the marriage. The prosecution case is that Kishanlal (husband), Poora (mother-in-law) Banwarilal (father-in-law and Om Prakash (brother-in-law) continuously pressurized Sulochana to bring Rs. 5,100 from her father. The prosecution case further is that on 12-9-76 Sulochna was given beatings by her husband Kishanlal. He took all her ornaments and threatened her that she would be killed. In the night at about 1 a.m. when Sulochna was sleeping with her mother-in-law. Poora, the accused persons poured kerosene oil on her and...
Tag this Judgment!Jan Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1729
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through these appeals-- represented appeal and jail appeal Jan Mohd. has called in question his conviction under Section 302, IPC recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner vide judgment dt. 29-4-1994.2. The prosecution case can be summarised as follows. Asha (14 years) d/o Prabhu Dayal had accompanied Hemant Kumar (P.W. I) and his wife Ranjulata (P.W. 8) who are neighbours of Prabhu Dayal, to the temple on 2-4-91 in the evening. When they were returning to their homes and passing by the side of Sursagar pond, all of a sudden accused Jan Mohd. bounced on Asha and jumped into the Sursagar pond along with the girl. He took Asha in deep waters. Hemant Kumar who was taken by surprise jumped into the pond. However, he could not move further because of thick mud. Some people collected there, and the police also reached there. With the help of lights of vehicles a search was made in the water. Asha when taken out was found dead. Accused was unconscious. The F....
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Singh 803537 Nc (E) 00 Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC435; 1997(2)WLN306
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. In the instant, petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 5.1.1993 contained in Ex. 3 to the petition, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.2. Petitioner had joined the Air Force as non combatant enrolled person in the trade of Lascar (class IV] on 6.3.1985. Petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 30.9.1992 contained in Ex. 1 to the petition why action should not. be taken against him to separate him from service under Section 20 of the Air Force Act, 1950, hereinafter called 'Act' as he entered in the service by making misrepresentation. Petitioner filed reply to the same on 19.10.1992, which is contained in Ex. 2 to the petition. After considering the same, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide impugned order dated. 5.1.1993. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing of the impugned order date 5.1.1993 contained in Ex. 3 to the petition.3. Heard S/Shri R.C. Gaur ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Raj. Vs. Laldeen and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN396
G.L. Gupta, J.1. These three appeals have been directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 7.9.79 in Sessions Case No. 61/78 whereby he convicted accused Laldeen, Hazira, Nihaldeen s/o Mahendra Khan, Gafoor and Nihaldeen s/o Hakim Khan under Section 304 Part-II IPC, in the alternative, under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 149 IPC, and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. Accused Gafoor and Nihaldeen s/o Hakim Khan were also convicted under Section 324 IPC and accused Laldeen, Hazira and Nihaldeen s/o Mahendra Khan under Section 324/149 IPC and sentenced to two years R.I.2. The State of Rajasthan has questioned the acquittal of the accused persons under Section 302 IPC through D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 594/79 Accused Nihaldeen and Gafoor have preferred Appeal No. 455/79 and the other three accused Hazira, Nihaldeen s/o Mahendra Khan and Laldeen have preferred Appeal No. 453/79 challenging their convictions. All the. th...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Vastavat Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC151; 1998(1)WLN528
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. In the instant petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 4.6.1980, 27.9.1980, 4.5.1983 and 22.4.1987 contained in Annexs. 1, 9 and 12A to the petition, by which the petitioner has been removed from service and his appeal, revision etc. have been dismissed. Before proceeding further, it may be pointed out here that petitioner has sought quashing the impugned order dt. 27.9.1980, which had not been filed by the petitioner and the same had been filed by the respondents alongwith their reply to the petition as Annex. R/9.2. Petitioner was appointed as a clerk on 1.3.1972 with Rajasthan Mahila Parishad. There has been some break in service and he was again appointed on Jan. 24, 1978 as is evident from Annex. R/1 filed alongwith the reply to the petition. Petitioner proceeded on leave just after filing the application in anticipation of sanction of leave and remained absent from 1.3.1980 to 15.3.1980, 18.3.1980 to 30.3.1980, 1.4.1980 to 30.4.1980 and 1....
Tag this Judgment!Nar Singh Vs. Badri Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ986
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, in Cr. Revision No. 35/91 decided on 30-1-1992 by which he confirmed the order of learned ACM, Desuri in Cr. Case No. 20/89 decided on 19-8-1991.2. The allegations are that on 11-7 89 petitioner Narsingh moved an application under Sections 145, 146, Cr. P. C. before the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Bali camp Desuri, against Hari Singh, Gamana, Naring, Uda and Lada in relation to agricultural land bearing old Khasra Nos. 47 and 47/1. The new numbers of the said land are 73,75,76,77 arid 78. The old Khasra No. 47 was of 34 bighas and 5 biswas and 47/1 was well wherefrom the Khasra No. 47 was being irrigated. In the aforesaid land, petitioner had 1/4 share; Hari Singh had 1/4 share and the rest of 1 /4 share was of non-petitioners. The petitioner in the aforesaid application averred that the division of the land had taken place between khate...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN258
R.R. Yadav, J.1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order dated 9.11.1990, Annexure-8, to the writ petition passed by Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika, Jalore, by means of which, construction over the plot in question has been stayed till further order, and the order dated 16.11.1990, Annexure-9 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner was refused a copy of order alleged to have been passed by Collector, Jalore on 9.11.1990 that is now filed as Annexure R-2 to the return. It is prayed by the petitioner that respondents No. 2 and 3 be directed to execute a registered patta in his favour.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are that on 15.8.89 the petitioner submitted an application before the Administrator, Municipal Board, Jalore for allotment of residential plot in Shivaji Nagar, Jalore, measuring 60' x 60'. The Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika, Jalore, on 4.11.1989, informed to the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »