Rajasthan Court August 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.
Ram Prasad Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj37; 2000(2)WLC205
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 22-5-1999 (Annexure 3) and the order dated 28-6-1999 (Annexure 5) whereby, the State Govt. directed to hold judicial inquiry de ,novo.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition in brief are that on the basis of complaint, an exploitation on the five charges was called for by the Dy. Secretary to the Local Self Government Department vide letter dated 29-9-1997 (Annexurel). Therefore, vide order dated 9-2-1999 (Annexure 2) it was conveyed by the aforesaid Dy. Secretary that upon preliminary inquiry prima facie the petitioner was found guilty therefore, under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, a decision by the State Govt. was taken to hold judicial inquiry against the petitioner on the charges framed in the charge sheet annexed to the order dated 9-2-1999 (Annexure 2). Then, the impugned order of suspension dated 22-5-1999 (Annexure 3) was passed against ...
Narendra Singh Solanki Vs. Raw and Finishing Production and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR821]; (2001)IIILLJ304Raj; 2000(2)WLC649
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. This is a petition by unsuccessful workman whose dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected by the learned Labour Court, Udaipur.2. Facts giving rise to the petition stated briefly are that the petitioner was a workman employed in Raw & Finishing Production Pvt. Limited Company from February 17, 1977. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated from May 1, 1981. It would be necessary in the context of the present case to note verbatim, the averments and claim of the petitioner in this regard. The respondents started resenting petitioner's claim of regularisation and got annoyed with the petitioner and consequently, without any information effected removal of the petitioner from service with effect from May 1, 1981. According to the petitioner therefore, the employer effected removal of the petitioner from service. According to the workman therefore, it is the positive act of removal of the petitioner by respondents which creates...
Bal Kishan Puri Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3300; 2000WLC(Raj)UC208
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. Bal Krishan Puri (accused) has filed this misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending against him and others, in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur.2. Mr. Singh, pointing out that the offence had taken place some 18 years back and challan was filed 4 years after the registration of the case prays that the proceedings pending against the petitioner should be quashed. His contention is that the witnesses may not be available now and it will be abuse of the process of the Court to allow the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner. He relies on the case of Des Raj Singal v. State of Punjab (1986) 89 (1) Punj LR 82.3. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the petition stating that there are serious charges of misconduct against the petitioner. Relying on the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 Cri LJ 2717 he canvasses that the petition be dismissed.4. I have cons...
The Asstt. Engineer, Phed Vs. Mohammed Hussain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC578; 1999(1)WLN693
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Heard Mr. Vimal Mathur, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. J. Gehlot, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. There are two orders which are challenged in this appeal. One is the order dated 4.12.1991 passed ex-parte against the appellant granting compensation of Rs. 50,015/- to the workman-respondent. The other order is dated 26.12.1991 by which application for setting aside the exparte award was rejected by the court. Since the order dated 26.12.1991 is not of the category of orders against which appeal could be filed under Section 30 of the Act, the only challenge which can be examined in this case is to the order dated 4.12.1991.3. A perusal of the record shows that on 11.11.1991 on the notices being found to be served on the appellant and nobody appearing for him, an order to proceed ex parte against him was passed and the case was fixed for evidence on 20.11.1991. On 20.11.1991 the r...
Yasudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC294
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. By the instant writ of certiorari the petitioner seeks to quash the judgment dated Jan. 31, 1995 of the learned Division Bench of the Board of Revenue Ajmer, whereby the special appeal preferred by the Urban Improvement Trust Jodhpur (in short the UIT) was allowed and the judgment of the learned single Bench of the Board of Revenue Ajmer dated May 30, 1986 was set aside.2. Brief resume of the facts is that in the city of Jodhpur, there lies a big chunk of land titled as Khasra Nos. 751/1160, 751/ 1157, and 751/1159 measuring 40 bighas situated at Khema Ka Kuan, Pal Road Jodhpur. The Collector Jodhpur vide order dated October 16, 1975 converted the said land into Abadi land and placed it at the disposal of the UIT on payment of 40 times the land revenue. This order was called in question by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Appellate Authority Jodhpur on the ground that the land in question was not unoccupied Government...
Mangalam Cement Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ505Raj
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. All the three writ petitioners are commonly aggrieved against the notification issued in the Government Gazette dated October 4, 1985 published in Rajasthan Gazette on December 5, 1985 under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in regard to the employment of contract labour in Mangalam Cement Ltd., Associated Cement Company and Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. Udaipur Cement Works is a unit of Hindustan Sugar Mills. In the aforesaid notifications issued by the State Government, it was stated that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (i) of Section 10 of the Act, the State Government after considering the recommendations of the Rajasthan State Contract Labour Advisory Board had ordered that the employment of contract labour in the process of loading of filled cement bags in Wagons/Trucks and in the work of sweeping/cleaning of spilled cement occurring in the process of...
Bhanamal and Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Authority Appointed Under Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR768]; (2000)IIILLJ1484Raj; 2000WLC(Raj)UC271
ORDERAshok Parihar, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated September 30, 1988 passed by Authority under Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, Alwar by which while setting aside the termination of services of respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the concerned employee) the Authority has directed the petitioner to reinstate the concerned employee with continuity of service and full back wages. 2. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the impugned order of the Authority. 3. The concerned employee was working with the petitioner since 1947. Subsequently, he was transferred to Alwar Branch in the year 1955. His services were terminated on January 7, 1986. The concerned employee filed an application under Section 28(A) of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 before the Authority on January 24, 1986. 4. After taking evidence of both the sides, the authority came to a finding of ...
Motilal and anr. Vs. L.Rs. of Late Poonampuri and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj65
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a revision against the order of learned Additional District JudgeNo. 2, Jodhpur dated 11-1-1994 by which he issued injunction in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 320/93 by setting aside the order of learned Munsif dated 4-12-1993.2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.3. The case has a checkered history. One Mohanlal alias Mohanpuri, who was father of Poonampurl-respondent, was tenant of Motilal and Smt. Chhota. The shop in question was let out to him on 28-10-1955 on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/-. Till his death Mohan Lal continued to be a tenant of this shop and carried on his business of halwai. Mohanlal was also carrying on business with his father in the shop. Motilal and Smt. Chhota filed a suit against Mohanlal and Bhanwarlal for eviction sometime in 1967. Both of them filed a joint written statement on 14-12-1967. Issues were framed on 3-6-1969. Counsel named Shri Inder Chand Maloo as their counsel but he pleaded no Instructions on behalf of ...
Roopa Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1031
G.L. Gupta, J. 1. The judgment dt. 23-8-82 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, convicting appellants Roopa Ram, Basti Ram and Sukh Ram Under Section 325 and 447, IPC and sentencing Roopa Ram to undergo two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500 under the first count, one month R.I. under the second count and releasing appellants Sukhram and Bastiram on probation, has given rise to this appeal.2. The incident had taken place in the morning of 4-10-81 in village Pal Thoriyon Ki Dhani in which Girdhari (P.W. 3) and Bhera Ram (deceased) had sustained injuries. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the statement of Girdhari recorded by Khet Singh, A.S.I. at 10-15 a.m. on 4-10-81 was that Basti Ram had inflicted lathi blow to Bhera Ram and Rupa Ram had inflicted a 'farsi' blow on his head by sharp side. It was further stated that the assailants were five in numbers viz. Basti Ram, Rupa Ram, Chaina Ram, Sukhram and Gopa Ram. On this report, a case Under Section 147, 148, 149, 452 and 307, IPC wa...
Poonam Chand Vs. Dhan Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2080; 2000(2)WLC243; 1999(1)WLN685
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. This is tenant's motion for action in contempt against his landlord-respondent for non-compliance of the compromise decree dated 1-12-87 passed in Second Appeal and order passed in revision petition on 29-2-96.2. The present contempt petition has a chequered history. The facts and circumstances leading to filing of it are stated hereinbelow.3. It is revealed from the material available on record that an ejectment suit was filed by the landlord-respondent on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity as envisaged under Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'Act No. 17 of 1950') against the tenantpetitioner and other tenants which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 31-5-1975.4. The landlord-respondent feeling aggrieved against the dismissal of his suit preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge ordering ejectment of the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »