Rajasthan Court February 1999 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.
The Chairman, Kulchandra Gram Seva Sahkari Samit Ltd. Vs. the Judge, L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC540; 1999(1)WLN254
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award of the Labour Court dated 30.8.1995 (Annexure.3), by which it has been held that the respondent- workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination and the termination order has further been found to have been passed without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947').2. The Labour Court has passed the order of reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and with all the back wages. While making that award, the Labour Court has observed that the employer (present petitioner), after filing the counter-claim and entering appearance, did not participate in the proceedings nor it led any evidence to support its case that the respondent-workman was removed after following the enquiry, nor it had made any application that the issue ma...
Roop Singh Vs. Jabbar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC766; 1999(1)WLN261
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1996 setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 6, Jodhpur in Original Civil Suit No. 65 of 1995 whereby the learned first appellate court reduced the provisional determination of rent of the shop in dispute by the learned trial court from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 50/- per month.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the original record requisitioned from learned trial court.3. It is evident from perusal of paragraph 2 of the plaint that Rs. 350/-was agreed rent between the parties at the time when the shop in question was let out to defendant-respondent Jabar Singh in the month of January 1986. Later on, the rent was enhanced from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 400/- per month and thereafter from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month. It is to be noticed that in the ...
Hanuman Singh Vs. the Election Commissioner of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj100; 1999(3)WLC203
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. One Shri Ram Dev (Ram Dev Singh) was nominated by the Bhartiya Janta Party (for short B.J.P.) as approved candidate for contesting the election of the Member to the Mundwa Assembly Constituency in the general elections to be held in November 1998 for the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. Said Ramdev filed his nomination paper for contesting the election as B.J.P. Candidate, but unfortunately died on 12-11-1998. The election was to be held on 25-11-1998. The poll to this Mundwa Assembly Constituency stood adjourned by the Returning Officer. The factum of death was notified by the Returning Officer to the Election Commissioner as was mandatorily required under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act (here-in-after called the Act). The Election Commission of India after receipt of the report from the Returning Officer, issued notice under Section 52(2) of the Act on 14-11-1998 to the B.J.P. and called upon the said B.J.P. to nominate another candidate for th...
Agarwal Tubes (P.) Ltd. Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas633(Raj); 1999(3)WLC106; 1999(1)WLN250
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Relying upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Gemini Arts (P.) Ltd. v. Indian Bank [1999] 95 Comp. Cas. 345, it was submitted by the learned counsel Shri Kothari that though this petition is filed against the interlocutory order this Court should entertain this petition as the post of Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is vacant and, therefore, his appeal could not be decided till date.2. Before dealing with the aforesaid submission, a few facts are required to be stated in this matter, which are as under :The petitioner is a private limited company and respondent No. 3, the State Bank of Bikancr and Jaipur filed a suit for recovery before the Debt Recovery Tribunal--respondent No. 1 against the petitioner for recovering huge amount of more than one crore which was taken by the petitioner from the bank by way of loan under the provisions of the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('the Act') which ...
Smt. Koushalya Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj259; 1999(3)WLC138; 1999(1)WLN244
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur on 19th November, 97 in civil suit No. 155/95 by which the plaintiff-respondent's suit was decreed against the appellant-defendant for a sum of Rs. 69,392/- with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 49,649.00 @ 14% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of payment. By the impugned judgment and decree the respondent-defendant was further authorised to sell the property which had been hypothecated by the appellant-plaintiff for the purpose of recovery of the decretal amount.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated as below :--Accordingly to the averments made in the plaint, the appellant moved an application before the respondent for grant of loan for the purpose of establishing Aluminium Handicraft. Term loan of Rs. 90,000/- and working capital to the extent of Rs. 16,000/- was sanctioned ...
Ganesh Das Vs. Narendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3362; 1999(3)WLC457; 1999(1)WLN98
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioner seeks the quashment of the proceedings under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur.2. Mr. Joshi pointing out that the complainant-respondent had not made a demand for payment of the amount of the dishonored cheque by giving notice in writing within 15 days of the receipt of the information from the Bank, contends that cognizance could not be taken by the Magistrate under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The learned Public Prosecutor though admits that notice of demand was not given within 15 days, yet contends that the Magistrate has condoned the delay, and therefore, the proceedings should not be quashed.4. I have considered the above arguments. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows :-138. Dishonor of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account...
Yamuna Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj200; 2000(1)WLC724; 1999(1)WLN243
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned notice/order dated 5-3-94 (Annex. 2) passed by the District Collector (Relief), Churu, respondent No. 2. 2. Learned counsel Shri Joshi for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice/order (Annex. 2) is in clear violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the same be set aside. Mr. Joshi also submitted that due to political pressure the impugned order was passed and in the impugned notice/order no specific instances have been made that in what manner any irregularity or illegality was committed by the petitioner. 3. Before dealing with the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Joshi, I must narrate few facts of the case. The petitioner was former Secretary of Shri Gopal Goshala, Sri Dungargarh, which was a social institution meant to render free services to the needy persons of the society in the days of famine and natural calamities. The petitioner had to distribute the fodder during th...
Mangoo Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ140Raj
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.The counsel for the respondent produced before the Court the original muster role hook and filed a certified photostat copy of the muster role of the relevant date. The certified copy of the muster role be placed on record.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 18, 1983 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara, in compensation case No. 39/92, whereby the claim filed by the appellants-claimants was rejected on the ground that it was not proved that the deceased had been employed by the respondent and was a workman within the meaning of Clause (n) of Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased Ladu Son of the appellants was working at the site of Kothari Project, Jalia Minor where work was in progress. He had been employed on daily wages of Rs.7/- per day and on April 25, 1981, the date on which incident o...
Arihant Builders Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC574; 1999(1)WLN238
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner has once again challenged in this petition show cause notice dated 16.10.1996 (Annex. 1) and also challenged the valuation report dated 20.5.1996 (Annex.7).and the impugned order dated 22.5.1998 (Annex. 11).2. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the valuation report dated 20.5.1996 (Annex. 7) ought not to have been relied upon by the Authority and it should have been straight away discarded in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Prem Kumar Surana 1994 ITR 715. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned notice (Annex- 1), valuation report (Annex. 7) and the impugned order dated 22.5.98 (Annex. 11) be quashed and set aside.3. Before dealing with the aforesaid submissions, I must state that earlier the petitioner filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4472/97 challenging the impugned notice at Annex. 1 contending that though the reply was filed, no decision was taken by the I.T.O., Sumerpur. That petiti...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Madan Gopal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj248; 1999(3)WLC225; 1999(1)WLN94
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 5-10-1996 passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 18-3-1995 passed by the D.I.G. (Stamp) rejecting the reference made Under Section 47 of the Stamp Act before him.2. The learned Addl. Government Advocate Shri Upadhyaya submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed grave error in rejecting the revision petition filed by the State Government on the technical ground of limitation only. He submitted that the Government is put to the loss of about Rs. 7 lacs in rejection of revision in this manner. In support of his submission he has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment reported in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353.3. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Purohit vehemently submitted that the Board of Revenue rightly rejected the revisio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »