Rajasthan Court October 2000 Judgments
Kishan Lal Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC685; 2001(1)WLN119
J.C. Verma, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by the defendant against the order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC has been decided in a suit for eviction and recovery of rent for the premises in question.2. The application was necessiated because of the death of Smt. Bhagwati Devi plaintiff on 13.7.1998, but the application for substitution by bringing on record the L.Rs. of the plaintiff was moved on 2.11.1998 which was beyond the period of limitation of 90 days and barred by 22 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved. The applicant had submitted that because of the advise as given by the counsel, a misunderstanding had been created about the time of limitation and, therefore, the application for setting aside the abatement was also moved. The trial court had observed that if the application is not moved within 90 days then the su...
Tag this Judgment!Sheopat Ram Vs. Dana Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC655; 2001(1)WLN155
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 7.9.2000 (Annexure/4) in a revision which was filed by one Dana Ram.3. The facts which are not disputed that said Dana Ram, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, was allotted the land in question on 21.11.1975 against which many persons objected to and demanded cancellation of the said allotment which proceedings culminated in favour of Dana Ram.4. The Additional Collector vide his order dt. 21.9.1993 (Annexure/3) upheld the order made in favour of Dana Ram. The objections raised by Sheopat Ram, the present petitioner, were rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 13.2.1997. Those orders have become final and no more in doubt. It appears that after allotment of land in question made in favour of said Dana Ram, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, on 21.11.1975, the same was again allotted in favour of Sheopat Ram on 8.2.1983 almost after eight yea...
Tag this Judgment!Premlata Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC287; 2007(3)WLN139
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant-petitioner Smt. Premlata Gaur, Asstt. Teacher, Government Primary School, Harijan Basti, Jodhpur had filed writ petition (No. 1287/1995) before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 8.10.1974 (Annex.3) passed by the Dy. Inspector of Schools (Girls), Jodhpur fixing her salary at Rs. 105/- per month with effect from 1.10.1974 and also order dated 8.10.1974 (Annex.4) whereby deduction at the rate of Rs. 35/- has been ordered to be made from her salary every month on the ground that excess salary was paid to her.2. Several contentions were raised in the main writ petition by the petitioner. One of them was that in similar Writ Petition No. 1109/1994, filed by Smt. R. Mathur against the State of Rajasthan & others, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. v. Kokje, J.) was pleased to allow the writ petition on 8.9.1994. Therefore, this petition be also allowed and impugned orders at Annexs.-3 and 4 be quashed and set aside.3. Initially t...
Tag this Judgment!Pukh Raj Singhvi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC173; 2001(1)WLN33
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The facts are frugal and the issue not very complex but is of a vital importance to the petitioner who is struggling long for his retiral benefits since his retirement from service after rendering almost 38 years of service, of which until 1962, to be precise 16th November, 1962 with the State Government and, thereafter, w.e.f. 17th November, 1962 with the University of Jodhpur, now named as Jai Narayan Vyas University.3. The claim of the petitioner in the petition is to secure the pensionary benefits for the period for which the petitioner has served the State Government, that is to say, from 18th August, 1941 to 16th November, 1962. The service chronologer of the petitioner shows, about which there is no dispute, that on 18th August, 1941, he was appointed as L.D.C. in the erstwhile State of Jodhpur. On formation of State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was shifted to Jaipur in 1948. There he was promoted and has been appo...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Meena Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC71; 2001(1)WLN283
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.(1). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 5.12.97 and to quash the order of termination dated 18.11.97 (Annex.5) A further prayer to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits of service and to declare rule 6(b) of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1964') as ultra vires and unconstitutional is also made.(2). It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the communication dated 26.12.96, he submitted the required information in the prescribed proforma with supported documents and that after considering the same, the respondents have selected the petitioner for the post of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (for short 'E.D.M.C.') Kithana EDBO and issued order dated 13.1....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Govind Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC64; 2001(2)WLN71
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.1. Heard both the sides.(2). This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4th November, 1997 delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4028 of 1995. The appellant, wife of the deceased land-owner, filed the vvrit petition claiming compensation for the land measuring 5 bighas 10 biswas which has been utilised by the State of Rajasthan for construction of the road.(3). The short facts of the case are as follows:The appellant's husband purchased land measuring 21 bighas and 17 biswas falling in Khasra No. 57 of Village Chopasani District Jodhpur (Annex. 1). After purchase of the land in question the mutation was entered in the name of the husband of the appellant. In the year 1977-78 during the famine operations the respondents con-structed a road through the land of the appellant in which the land to the extent of 5 bighas and 10 biswas was covered by the road. After construction of the road the mutation in the record wa...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Department of Canteen Management Vs. Krishna Kumar Saxena
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR352]; (2001)ILLJ896Raj; 2001(1)WLC169
Arun Madan, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order dated July 28, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge allowing an application filed by Krishna Kumar Saxena (respondent No. 1) under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, during the pendency of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2661/1996, wherein the petitioner has challenged the Award dated September 26, 1995 (Annexure 5) of the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur holding that 'Canteen' is an 'industry' thereby removal of the respondent No. 1 was retrenchment and violative of Section 25-F and therefore holding the respondent entitled to full back wages from January 2, 1984 to June 1991 alongwith reinstatement in service but for period from July, 1991 onwards the matter was left open for adjudication under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, if applied for by the respondent No. 1. The writ petition was admitted on September 4, 1996.2. We have heard the learned counsel forthe appellant and perused the impugned orderof t...
Tag this Judgment!A.C.T.O. Vs. R.K. Constructions and Suppliers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: [2001]124STC701(Raj)
ORDERRajesh balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for respondent inspite of service.2. All these eight revisions raise a common question arising in similar circumstance, therefore are being heard and decided together by this common order.3. The facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee in each case is engaged in business of construction on contract.4. The facts found by the Tribunal affirming decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are that under the terms of contract the assessees were supplied with cement and steel directly from the awarder and they were to lift sand and gitti from the mine site as per directions of the awarder of contract and the mines from which these materials were to be collected belonged to the awarder. As the respondent-assessee had used in execution of the contract the material supplied by the awarder himself, no question of transfer of property in such goods from the assessee-respondent to the awarder ...
Tag this Judgment!Norat Mal Vs. Latur Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ2066
J.C. Verma, J.1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the claimant Norat Mal challenging the award dated 27.1.1994 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk in M.A.C.T. Case No. 108 of 1989.2. The claimant Norat Mal was seriously injured in the accident on 30.3.1989 when he was travelling in the bus No. 2996 from Deoli to Kekri; it had collided with a truck No. RSR 7077 near Negdia on Aj-mer Road. The collision was so bad that even the bus had broken and separated into two parts. The claimant was injured and was rushed to the Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, where his hand had to be amputated for proper further treatment. The truck was owned by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 was the insurer. The claimant filed claim application claiming Rs. 7,63,160.3. The necessary issues were framed in regard to accident, negligence and quantum of compensation. The Tribunal considered the statements of witnesses and decided all issues in favour of the claimant. However, the amount of com...
Tag this Judgment!Veerpal Singh Vs. the Dist. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC485; 2001(1)WLN146
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. Issue notice to respondent Mr. Hemant Srimali, panel lawyer was directed to accept notice, Mr. Goyal was directed to supply copy of special appeal as well as main writ petition with Annexures, which he has already supplied to Mr. Srimali.2. At the joint request and with the consent of learned Counsel for the respondent, the matter is finally decided.3. The appellant original petitioner is the Head-Constable. He was appointed on the post of constable by order dated 17.5.1977 and later on promoted as head-constable on 22.6.1991.4. On 17.7.1997, respondent No. l. D.S.P. Sriganganagar issued charge-sheet to the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules). The charge against the petitioner was that he directed constable Om Prakash to send telephonic message to the Police Station Lalgarh Jatan for effecting arrest of the accused persons. Because of that, the public gathered there and stag...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »