Rajasthan Court March 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.
Smt. Vandana Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN476
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner who is the Ex-Chairperson of Zila Parishad, Udaipur respondent No. 3, has filed this petition and challenged the meeting held on 23.2.1999 to debate the motion of no confidence and the no confidence motion passed against her and it is also prayed that the nomination of Smt. Sajan Katara - respondent No. 4 on the post of Zila Pramukh of Zila parishad, Udaipur in her place made on 27.2.1999 be declared illegal. When this petition had come up for hearing of admission before me on 9.3.1999, I was not much impressed by other arguments advanced by learned Counsel Shri Jasmatia for the petitioner. However, only one argument, which was emphathetically argued by learned Counsel Shri Jasmatia, appealed to me. It was submitted by learned Counsel Shri Jasmatia that the post of Zila Pramukh cannot be filled up by nomination. It can be filled up only by election. In para No. 15 of the petition as well as ground (V), this specific contention was raised. Repeatedly, M...
Municipal Corporation Vs. Sushila Smt. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ330Raj; 1999WLC(Raj)UC295
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The case has come up on an application filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the concerned workman') under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, on joint request of counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally on merits also.2. Petitioner has challenged Award dated July 31, 1993, passed by Labour Court, Kota, by which termination of services of the concerned workman has been held to be illegal and unjustified and he has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.3. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the impugned Award.4. The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence and material on record, has come to a finding of fact that the concerned workman had worked for more than 240 days in the last 12 calendar months. However, before terminating her services compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Indu...
Umaida Ram and ors. Vs. Bhavad Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC627; 1999(1)WLN468
B.J. Shethna, J.1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as identical points are involved in all these petitions and that Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') also disposed of in all 12 appeals filed by the appellant Ram Chandra Bishnoi individually and along with Binja Ram by common judgment and order dated 24.9.1994.2. In all these writ petitions the notices were ordered to be issued to the respondent except in writ petition No. 2953/98, however, same respondents are there in all these petitions, therefore, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order without issuing a formal notice in writ petition No. 2953/98. It may also be stated that though the appellant Ram Chandra Bishnoi and Binja Ram before the Tribunal were duly served, but they have not preferred to remain present before this Court either in person or through their advocate. Mr. Bheem Arora, learned Counsel has appeared in all these matters for the resp...
Gem Textile Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC414; 1999(1)WLN473
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Short but interesting question of law arising in this petition is viz., 'Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has any jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim or not?' If, 'No', then Tribunal was justified in reviewing its own earlier order?2. In this case, the Tribunal by its earlier order dated 11.6.1996 (Annex. 3) held that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide the counter claim. The said order was subsequently reviewed by the Tribunal by its order dated 5.6.1998 (Annex.6). The same is challenged by the petitioner - original defendant in a suit filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.3. Learned Counsel Ms. Gupta for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in reviewing its own earlier order dated 11.6.1996 by the impugned order dated 5.6.1998 (Annex. 6). She submitted that once the Tribunal has come to the conclusion way back on 11.6.1996 that it had jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim then merely because there was a su...
Smt. Laxmi Kachhawaha Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj254; 1999(3)WLC508
V.S. Kokje, J. 1. This petition is filed by a lady, Political and Social Worker, in public interest drawing attention of this Court to the malpractices and atrocities allegedly being committed by the bodies called caste panchayats on the weaker-sections of the concerned communities, especially on the woman members of the community. It has been averred in the petition that even these bodies called caste panchayats are not properly organised and constituted on principles of democratic representation and without any election, unruly elements in the community declare themselves as Panchas of the community and rule the community as such. It is alleged that without following any norms the community panchayats exercise powers of granting divorce, resolving legal disputes, imposing penalties and imposing punishments etc. There being no sanction of law behind the decisions given by such panchayats, the Panchas get their decisions executed by resorting to threats and muscle-power. It is also all...
Eternit Everest Ltd. Vs. Neelmani Bhartiya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj235; 1999(3)WLC269
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J. 1. This is a petition challenging decision of the trial Court rejecting an application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC r/w Section 151, CPC. The respondent has filed a suit against the petitioners styling it to be a suit for declaration, injunction and cancellation of original shares and issuing duplicate shares. It was contended in the plaint that M/s Eternit Everest Ltd. is a Company which had floated a public issue of its shares which was being managed by M/s M.C.S. Ltd. The plaintiff had purchased 300 shares which were recorded in the plaintiff's name in the records of the company. It is further contended in the plaint that the share certificates issued by the company to the plaintiff were lost and are not traceable to the plaintiff. It was further contended that the plaintiff wanted to sell those shares and for that purpose he contacted certain Brokers from Bombay and the plaintiff had signed transfer deeds also for the purpose of forwarding thesame to the share br...
Pema Ram and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2916; 1999WLC(Raj)UC568
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in sessions case No. 142/92, the accused appellants named above have preferred these appeals on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeals. The facts of these appeals are identical and therefore, both the appeals can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment.2. Facts giving rise to the appeals stated briefly are that the first information report was lodged in Police Station, Bhaleri by one Mool Chand s/o. Dooda Ram that in the night, his brother Radhey Shyam was killed by his brother Pema Ram. Thereafter, investigation was taken up, during the investigation, it was revealed that the informant Mool Chand was involved in commission of the offence and therefore, both the persons were prosecuted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of its case that the murder was committed by...
Maharaj Kumar Chand Vs. Jodhpur Film Vitrak Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC66; 1999(1)WLN466
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This revision petition is directed against rejection of an application filed by the revision petitioner-defendant for taking photo-copies of a document which is said to have been lost from the custody of the defendant-revision-petitioner. The defendant in his defence submitted photo copies of an agreement and receipt dated 20.1.1986 in the Court. At the time of evidence the defendant moved an application for permission to lead secondary evidence in support of these documents as according to him the originals were lost while in his custody and he is not able to trace them. The plaintiff objected by contending that the documents did not bear signatures of any one and therefore cannot be treated to be a secondary evidence of any other document. It has also been contended that the receipt dated 20.1.1986 Was not executed by the plaintiff. It was further contended that while being examined under Order 10 of the CPC the defendant had admitted that he did not know Uttam Chand...
Rashid Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3751
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-12-1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, convicting the second appellant Sabir Hussain of the offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC and sentencing him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' R.I. Accused appellant Rashid has been convicted for the offence under Section 323, IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months' simple imprisonment.2. The prosecution story is that second appellant Sabir Hussain and his son i.e. first appellant Rashid were the Jamandar of Bhatta Nos. 5 and 6 respectively situated in village Barna. Deceased Ogad Ram was an employee of Bhatta No. 5 and was doing the work of Mistri. On 10-4-1981, there was a paucity of labour and, as such, accused Sabir asked the deceased to send his labours at Bhatta No. 6 but he refused to do so. Thereafter, Sa...
Harlal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN458
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The present petitioners Harlal, Shiv Nath and Asu Ram sons of Kushla Ram have filed this writ petition and challenged the impugned order at Annex. 3 dated 1.5.1995 passed by the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, whereby, he reviewed his earlier order at Annex. 1 passed on 9.8.1991 of awarding compensation to the petitioners for their land.2. The petitioners land was situated just near to the Rajasthan Canal and because of seepage pf water, the land became un- cultivable and caused substantial damage to the crop on the land, therefore, they applied for compensation before the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation. The petitioner No. 1 was awarded compensation of Rs. 64850/-, petitioner No. 2 was awarded compensation of Rs. 60000/- and petitioner No. 3 was awarded compensation of Rs. 21500/- by the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation by his impugned common order dated 9.8.1991 (Annex. 1). This order was passed a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »