Rajasthan Court August 1999 Judgments
Management of Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Industr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR1001]; (2000)IILLJ1075Raj; 2000(2)WLC720
J.C. Verma, J.1. In respect of the financial year 1983-84, the State had referred the dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act), to the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, for adjudication whether the workmen of the petitioner bank were entitled to the bonus to the extent of 20 per cent or not. The statement of claim was filed before the Industrial Tribunal vide Annexure 1 which was replied to by the petitioner vide Annexure 2. It is stated that the petitioner had filed the calculation in respect of gross profits for the purpose of calculating available and allocable surplus for distribution of bonus for the year 1983-84 and a counter calculation was also filed by the workers. The dispute is about the amount of calculation which had been added by the workmen to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs of the gross profit to which the case of the petitioner is that such amount cannot be added back for the purpose of bonus. For calculating the b...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Dhobi Vs. Fateh Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN698
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 15/99 by which he allowed the appeal against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 2, Jodhpur.2. Plaintiff Fatehlal filed a suit for ejectment of a shop situated at plot No. 340, IVth Chopasani Road, Jodhpur on the ground of default, personal necessity etc. No arrears of rent were claimed. In the written statement defendant pleaded that he did not commit default in payment of rent and that the plaintiff had no personal and bona fide necessity. After filing of the written statement the trial court fixed the matter for determination of provisional rent. The trial court in view of Ganesh Lal v. Ladu Ram 1997 (3) WLC (Raj.) page 638, held that in the suit no arrears of rent were claimed and hence determination of provisional rent was not necessary. This order was challenged in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge,...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Rahim Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN694
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order passed by the Collector and Dy. Commissioner, Colonisation on 11.9.1995 (Annex.2) making reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 232 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') and the impugned order at Annex.3 dated 10.10.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue accepting the reference and setting aside the decree dated 9.4.1995 passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Kolayat (for short, 'ACC') in suit No. 159/84 in favour of the petitioner declaring him as 'GAIR KHATEDAR'.2. Learned Counsel Shri Sharma for the petitioner submitted that a reference was made by the Dy. Commissioner, Colonisation under Section 232 of the Act after ten years of passing of decree by ACC on 9.4.1985. He submitted that though no period of limitation is provided for making reference it should have been made within a reasonable time i.e. within one year as held by the Division Bench of this Court in ca...
Tag this Judgment!Lrs of Dwarka Nath Vs. Receiver, Tehsildar, Revenue, Sriganganagar and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj195; 2000(1)WLC751
V.S. Kokje, J.1. One Dwarka Nath had applied for being declared insolvent under Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Insolvency Act') on 5-7-71. The learned District Judge declared him insolvent on 17-8-72. The learned District Judge had also appointed Tehsildar, Sriganganagar as receiver of the insolvent property under Section 56 of the Insolvency Act. The receiver took poosesslon of the property of the insolvent including two shops No. 48 and 49 Ravindra Path, Sriganganagar which were allotted by Muncipal Council, Sriganganagar to the insolvent. On 3-3-80 the receiver auctioned the rights of occupancy of the disputed shops on rental basis and the highest bid of one Rishi Kumar at Rs. 325/- per month of rent over and above the rent payable to the Municipal Council was accepted. On 8-4-82 the shops were put in possession of Rishi Kumar after a regular rent deed was executed. Thereafter the rent was enhanced by Rs. 750/- per month with the c...
Tag this Judgment!Yatiendra Yadav and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC245
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The case of the petitioners in short is that they are aspirant candidates for admission to 1st year BE/B.Sc. (Engg.)/ B.Tech/B.Arch Degree Courses in various Engineering Colleges (Government or Private) in the State of Rajasthan for the academic session 1999-2000.2. The petitioners had all appeared in the Rajasthan Pre-Engineering (Entrance) Test-1999 (RPET) held on 1st, 2nd and 3rd June, 1999 respectively and qualified the same. The said examination was convened by the respondents for filling up the seats in the 1st Year of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) and other technical courses referred to above in various Engineering Colleges both Govt. and private as aforesaid, with the State of Rajasthan.3. Pursuant to the declaration of the result of RPET Examination-1999, which was published in newspapers on 10-7-99 (Ann. 1), a combined merit-list for General and OBC candidates and separate merit-list for SC/ST, Girls (General) and, OBC, SC, ST and other reserved classes...
Tag this Judgment!L.R. of Ganeshmal Vs. Velaram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj76; 2000(1)WLC635
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. In this case the main question to be determined is as to whether the suit filed by non-petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is maintainable?2. The facts of the case are that one Shri Rundas, s/o Shri Shanker Dass Vaishnav had mortgaged a plot of land in village Rani, with Ganeshmal s/o Fouzmal on 15-1-1934. This property was not got redeemed by the mortgagor and on 25-5-90 Jodharam s/o Lumbaram and Poonaram s/o Rajaram were alleged to have forcibly taken possession of the plot of land and the construction stand-Ing thereon. As there was apprehension of breach of peace, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Rani, lodged a complaint with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali Under Section 145, Cr. P.C. against Ganeshmal and Poonaram as party No. 2. On 25-9-85 the proceedings were disposed of by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate declaring Ganeshmal to be in possession of the property.3. On 14-1-86 Ganeshmal moved an application purportedly to ...
Tag this Judgment!Aziza Khan Vs. Dr. Amir Hussain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2582; I(2001)DMC402; 2000(2)WLC358
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this criminal revision, petitioner Smt. Aziza Khan, calls in question the order of the Family Court Jodhpur dated 17.11.1995 rejecting her application under Section 125, Cr.P.C.2. The common ground between the parties is that petitioner, Advocate and respondent doctor entered into marital relations on 6.8.1982 in accordance with Muslim rites and customs, and Rs. 10,000/- were settled as the 'Mehar' amount to be paid by the non-petitioner to the petitioner in case of 'Talaq'.3. The petitioner's case is that the non-petitioner was having illicit relations with two ladies-one, a doctor and the other of Jain community-and that she was subjected to cruelty and inhuman treatment at the hands of non-petitioner. It is alleged that the non-petitioner was, not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of the petitioner and she was asked to fetch handsome money from his father, who was Minister at that time. The petitioner in her application filed on 15.2.1994 under S...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu and Balwant Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1256
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this appeal Under Section 374(2), Cr.P.C, appellant Pappu calls in question the judgment of the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities on Women) Sri Ganganagar dt. 16-1-98, whereby he was convicted Under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default two months S.I.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these. The incident is of dt. 16-8-92. At about 1.30 p.m. 'S' (P.W. 1), 13 years, was in the field of her uncle Om Prakash for cutting grass. While she was doing her work, it is alleged, the accused went there, caught hold of her flung her on the ground and committed rape on her at pistol point. Om Prakash, (P.W. 3) happened to reach there and on his call the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged by Kalu Ram, father of 'S' on 17-8-92 at 7 p.m. on which a case Under Section 376, IPC was registered. During investigation the police got 'S' medically ...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ5090
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. This misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 27-1-99 of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner-accused dt. 2-11-98.2. The relevant facts are these, respondent Surendra Kumar deals in cotton at Sri Ganganagar. Accused Naresh Chandra, who is a trader of Kanpur, purchased cotton from the complainant respondent from 1-10-95 to 31-3-96 worth Rs. 12,20,785.26. After understanding the account, the petitioner accused accepted the liability and gave seven cheques worth Rs. one lakh each payable on various dates to the complainant at Abhore. The cheques were drawn on the State Bank of India, Kanpur. The complainant respondent presented those cheques for collection to the State Bank of Patiala, Abhore Branch on 10-12-96. The State Bank of India, Kanpur, however, did not honour the cheques and returned them with a note 'refer to drawer'. The complainant respondent, gave not...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN193
S.C. Mital, J.1. Heard2. Admit.3. The learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice.4. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 10.6.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner Ramesh Chandra against the judgment passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur dated 14.3.1996 by which the appellant was convicted under Sections 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C. and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment. The two other co-accused persons Babu Lal and Vipati Ram were also convicted by the learned trial court, but the learned appellate court accepted their appeal and acquitted them of all the charges. The appellant Ramesh Chandra has filed this revision petition.5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not advanced any argument on the findings of conviction of the petitioner under Sections 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C. by the two courts below. I have gone through the judgments of the two courts below and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »