Rajasthan Court May 1998 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.
Central Bank of India Vs. Smt. Sarojini Kumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2130; 1998(3)WLC288
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant contempt petition has been filed by the applicant Central Bank of India against Smt. Sarojani Kumari alleging the wilful defiance of the order dated 5-6-91 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1954/1991, University of Jodhpur and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., wherein the respondent was restrained from deciding any case as a Member of the District Forum, Consumers Protection, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur, unless the meeting was convened by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the applicant bank had granted term loan and cash credit (hypothecation) facilities to M/s. Quality Condutes Private Limited, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm') and as there had been a dispute regarding repayment of the loan amount and the said firm failed to make payment as per the Schedule of Repayment, litigation started between the parties and in respect of the same, applicant ba...
Om Prakash Vs. Babli
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC619; 1998(3)WLC429
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal by the husband Rajesh Kumar is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.1.1998 of the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur whereby he accepted the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the wife Smt. Mamta now respondent and allowed her an ex-parte decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the spouses.2. The facts are that the wife filed the petition aforesaid under Section 13 of the Act against the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty stating that after they were wedded on 16.5.1992 they had cohabited for a period during which her husband and her in-laws used to beat and maltreat her so much so that she was denied food and medicine when indisposed till she was ultimately booted out from the matrimonial home by the husband on 28.6.1995. Adding that her sister who was likewise married with a brother of her husband had suffered an identical fate.3. To begin with the husband appeared and contested the petition a...
Madan Singh Rawat Vs. Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ984Raj; 1999(1)WLC43
Saxena, J.1. This special appeal has been directed against the order dated April 23, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3973/1993, whereby appellant's writ petition was dismissed.2. Succinctly stated, relevant facts are that the appellant was initially appointed as a Class IV servant in service of the respondent Bank w.e.f. November 20, 1990 against sanctioned post on a consolidated monthly pay of Rs. 600/-in pursuance of the decision taken in meeting of Board of Directors of the Bank held on August 17, 1981 (Annexure 1). However, the respondent No. 1 vide order dated March 16, 1992 (Annexure 2) terminated services of the appellant without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without serving him any notice. The appellant challenged his termination order (Annexure 2) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2485/1992, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated March 22, 1993 (Annexure 3) and his termination order dated March 16, 1992 was quashed ...
Baburam Alias Babulal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3212
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. According to the Old Testament, first son of Adam and Eve Cain killed his brother Abel in a jealous rage and thus the first murder was committed. Ever since then so many brothers have murdered real brothers. Here is yet another case of fratricide.2. P.W. 13 Deepa Ram came to police station, Bayatu at 3-45 p.m. on 3-1-94 and submitted Ex. P/13 report. The report stated that at 11-00 a.m. Smt. Magni widow of deceased Magaram came to him and informed that at about 8 a.m. Magaram, her mother-in-law and husband's brother (accused-appellant) were present in the house. The accused-appellant and her husband had an altercation. Accused-appellant inflicted a kulhari blow on the head of her husband. Magaram started bleeding profusely and became unconscious. Deepa Ram immediately went to the place of occurrence and found that accused appellant was walking armed with a kulhari. Roop Singh and Bhura Ram also came there and found that Magaram was lying dead in the courtyard.3. A cas...
Project Director, Agriculture and Soil Survey Vs. Surendra Singh and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1475Raj; 1999(1)WLC206
G.L. Gupta, J.1. The State Government vide order dated May 25, 1997 referred industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Bikaner. Claim was filed by the workman through the labour Union. On behalf of the petitioner (employer) an advocate put in appearance which was objected to by the workman on the premises or Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Judge of the Labour Court upheld the objection and ordered that tbe employer shall not be represented by an advocate. In this writ petition, this order has been challenged. Mr. Jangid contends that under Section 36(4) the word 'and' after the word 'proceeding' and before the word 'with' should be read as 'or' because it is the leave of the Court which is material and even if the workman does not give consent it is in the discretion of the Labour Court to permit the employer to be represented by an advocate.2. Section 36(1) of the I.D. Act provides that a workman is entitled to be represented by any member of the executiv...
Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment C ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj277; 1999(1)WLC16
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 25-7-96, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, including the condition that the petitioner shall be liable for liabilities incurred by the previous occupier of the premises, and for quashing the order dated 26-7-97, contained in Annexure-11 to the petition, by which the application of the petitioner to delete the Condition No. 4, has been rejected. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one M/s. Shyam Oil & Cake Limited (hereinafter called 'the firm') was the lessee of an industrial plot situated at B-57. Marudhar Industrial Area, II Phase, Basni. While the lease was subsisting, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the said lessee to purchase-the said premises for a consideration of Rs. 21 lacs. As it was not a free-hold property, the original lessee, i.e. the firm applied for permission to transfer the lease-hold rights in favour of petitio...
Rajasthan Communication Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR636(Raj)
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner, namely, Rajasthan Communications Limited, is a Government undertaking'. Like any other assessee, the petitioner was required to file the income-tax returns. The petitioner did file the income-tax return for the year 1988-89 which was scrutinised and ultimately the petitioner was burdened with tax of Rs. 13,77,878. The petitioner deposited a total amount of Rs. 12,45,339 out of the tax and interest demanded as per the demand notice. Under the provisions of Section 273A(1) Clauses (i) and (iii) read with Clause (c), the petitioner had applied for waiver of the interest vide his application dated February 5, 1990, which application is attached as annexure-3 with the writ petition. It has been stated by the petitioner that because of circumstances beyond its control and because of certain financial strains, there was certain lapse on the part of the petitioner and a request was made to deposit the additional tax in instalments. It was further stated in anne...
Marudhara Conductors and anr. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj322; 1998(3)WLC665
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J. 1.By these petitions the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Haryana State Electricity Board, a statutory body to refund the earnest money or security deposit offered by the petitioner in response to the invitation to offer issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board. The petitioner-Company was unable to supply the material on the terms required by the Haryana State Electricity Board and, therefore, no contract of supply materialised. The claim of the petitioner for refund of the earnest money or security deposit not having been acceded to by the Board, the presentpetitions are filed. 2. The former Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. H. Beg observed, while deciding case of Ganpat v. Sashikant, AIR 1978 SC 955, about law of interpretation and precedence. It would be worthwhile to consider in extenso what was observed by his Lordship (at page 956),-- 'If the quest for certainty in law is often baffled, as it is according to Jud...
Smt. Ronak Begum and ors. Vs. Jorasingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj262
P.C. Jain, J.1. These appeals are directed against the Award dated 24-11-1993 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagore whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,74,000/- to the claimants of MACT Case Nos. 11/88[17/88New] and Rs. 1,50,000/-to the claimants of MACT Case No. 16/88(18/88 New].2. The brief facts of the case are that on 6-9-1987. a private Bus No. 5687 which was going from Jodhpur to Nagore collided with a Private Ambassador Car No. HPA 1281 coming from Nagore to Jodhpur. As a result of the above collision, the owner and driver of the said Ambassador Car Shri Majid Khan and one Shri Jagsingh (Jabarsingh) a passenger in that Ambassador car lost their lives. The said Bus was being driven by Driver Jorasingh and it was owned by respondent Jaswant Singh. The Bus was insured with United India Insurance Company, Jodhpur vide Cover No. 045737 with effect from 4-5-1987 to 3-5-1988. It is alleged that the above Bus was coming from Jodhpur to Nagore ...
Devi Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC363; 1998(1)WLN240
G.L. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed on the post of part-time Peon (Class-IV) on a sanctioned and vacant post in the office of respondent no. 4 Gram Panchayat on 29.5.1963. In the beginning he was paid Rs. 10/- per month but the amount was increased time to time. When the writ petition was filed, he was getting Rs. 200 per month. It has been averred that the petitioner discharges the same duties which are being discharged by the Class-IV employees and therefore he was entitled to get salary in the regular pay scale of Class IV employee with all consequential benefits but the respondents have ignored his legitimate demands. It has been prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the petitioner his salary and other consequential benefits of the post of Class IV employee from the date of his initial appointment.2. In the reply filed by respondents no. 1 to 3 it has been averred that the petitioner was appointed purely on part time basis and he was not dischar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »