Rajasthan Court October 2000 Judgments
Shivia and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC671; 2001(1)WLN147
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The Suit No. 192/87 was filed in the court of Assistant Collector, Jodhpur by Mangilal and Oma Ram respondents No. 6 & 7 in this petition against Jawana Ram son of Simratha Ram, Shivia, Khema Ram sons of Deda Ram, Kewal Ram son of Simratha Ram and the State of Rajasthan. A written statement is purported to have been filed only on behalf of defendants No. 1 & 3 admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Petitioner No. 2 Khema Ram has, denied to have filed any written statement by himself or by any other person authorised on him behalf because according to the petitioners notice of the suit was not, in fact, served on them. Be that, as it may, vide its judgment dated 15.5.1989, the Assistant Collector, taking note of the fact of the written-statement having been filed only by two of the defendants and the absence of written-statement on behalf of other defendants, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. No appeal against the said...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdayal Through L/Rs. Vs. Nathulal and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC651; 2001(1)WLN699
ORDERMadan, J. (1) This civil revision pelilion arises out of an order passed by the Additional Dislrict Judge, Kekri (Ajmer) in civil appeal No.31/92 allowing application of Gopal Lal (Opposite Party No. 9/3), under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC holding him as necessary party to the appeal as one of legal rep res enta lives of deceased Chandra Prakash, being adopted son.(2). Admitted facls, briefly stated are that Civil Suit No. 20/81. Suraj Devi vs. Ramdayal & Others instituted for eviction on the grounds of default and bonafide need was decreed by the trial court against the present petitioners (tenants/ defendants) by judgment and decree dated 7.2.81, against which an appeal was preferred by Ramdayal (tenant). During the pendency of the appeal, one of the respondents (plaintiff) namely Chandra Prakash had died on 11.9.1986 and as such on the application of the appellants (present petitioners), his widow & daughter were brought as legal representatives of deceased (respondent) Chandra Prak...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR994]; (2001)IILLJ1168Raj; 2001(4)WLC113; 2001(2)WLN59
ORDERShethna, J.(1). Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Vimal Mathur was asked to appear in the matter as earlier he appeared for the respondents on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.(2). At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this matter is heard today.(3). Two writ petitions, one filed by Dharamveer Singh being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1704/98 and another filed by Mana Ram being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2604/98 were dismissed by common judgment and order dated 25.8.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Aggrieved of that Judgment, the present appellant Dharamveer Singh has filed this special appeal.(4). It is the case of the appellant workman that by an order dated 2.4.1985, after due selection, he was appointed on the post of Helper initially for a period of three months and, thereafter, he continued to work upto 31.12.1986. However, by an oral order dated 1.1.1987 without giving any notice his services were termi...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Das Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj74; 2001(1)WLC227; 2001(1)WLN400
Shethna, J.1. Shri R.K. Das Gupta, President, Bikaner Bar Association addressed a letter dated 15-3-2000 to Hon'ble Justice Shri N.N. Mathur, Judge, Rajasthan High Court for making available the land of Farras Khana owned by the Public Works Department situated in Bikaner adjacent to the Court premises for the facility of Courts and advocates. It is stated in it that There is total dearth of building and space in the Court premises. Recently for two newly constituted Courts even the building could not be made available. Besides this other Courts are continuing in private building away from Court premises. There is dearth of space and building for advocates and litigants also .That advocate to the Court premises in this very area in the east of it a big plot of Farras Khan owned by P.W.D. is virtually vacant. It is not being used for any fruitful purpose.'That in the April, 1999 during the visit of Bikaner Hon'ble Chief Justice Sh. Shivraj V. Patil made the detailed inspection of this l...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Gita Rani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN464
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against the Judgment Annexure/5 dated 3.9.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue by which while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, the matter was remitted back to the Collector for deciding the question regarding determination of market value of the property in question for the purpose of levy of stamp duty on the sale deed in question afresh in accordance with the law after giving notice to the vendor and the vendee.3. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are: that the respondent purchased the property in question vide sale deed dated 10.9.1993 in which sale consideration was stated to be Rs. 80,000/-. The Seller was Smt. Parwati Devi and her son Heeralal and daughters Jamnadevi and Laxmidevi. The Sub-Registrar was of the opinion that the property in question may fetch the value at Rs. 2,83,500/and therefore, referred the case to the Collector (Stamps) Under Section 47 of the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Moola Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR529]; (2001)ILLJ1017Raj; 2001(1)WLC335; 2001(1)WLN176
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Before commencing the arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in other identical cases notices have been issued by another Division Bench of this Court and the matters are going to come up for hearing on notice on October 17, 2000, therefore, it was prayed that this matter be also adjourned to October 17, 2000. This request has to be rejected because number of writ petitions of similar nature were dismissed by this Bench itself in limine. Thus, it becomes a precedent and we are bound by our own order.2. From the impugned award passed by the Labour Court it is clear that the appellant petitioner had worked for few months, to be precise from February 1990 to April, 1991, as Chowkidar and that too on daily wages basis as an unskilled labour. The Labour Court found that the termination of the workman was illegal, therefore, held that termination was bad. However, instead of passing the order of reinstatement with back wages, the Labour C...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Bherulal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj42; 2001(1)WLC207; 2001(1)WLN532
Shethna, J. 1. Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as under : '56. (1) The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V and under Clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 26 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. (2) If any Collector, acting under Section 31, Section 40 or Section 41, feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. (3) Such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of Its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision.' 2. Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as under : '75. Power to make rules generally to carry out Act : The State Government may make rules to carry out generally the purposes of this Act and may by such rules ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation Vs. Ram Chandra Shringi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR32]; (2001)ILLJ1162Raj; 2001(1)WLC60
Arun Madan, J.1. In this special appeal, Municipal Corporation, Kota (appellant) has assailed the validity of the Order dated March 9, 2000 of the learned single Judge whereby he modified the Award dated December 2, 1998 passed by the Labour Court, Kota in LCR 30/93 to the extent that the termination of services of the respondent workman was held to be illegal and as such he has been ordered to be reinstated in services of the appellant-Corporation on same terms and conditions on which he was employed at the time of his termination from the date of award i.e. March 2, 1996 with the modification that the respondent workman was held not further entitled to claim any back wages prior to the date of the Award.2. Factual matrix leading to this special appeal is that Ramchandra (respondent No. 1) raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Kota, upon whose failure report submitted to the Government on May 30, 1992, the Government referred his dispute to the Labour Court, Ko...
Tag this Judgment!Rathindra Goswami Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC405; 2001(1)WLN458
J.C. Verma, J.1. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the fact that he was a Freedom Fighter and submitted application for pension as required under the scheme, but still vide letter dated 2.9.1997 the case of petitioner has been rejected by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.2. It is stated that the petitioner was Executive Member of the Dholpur State Praja Mandal in the year 1945-47 and he had hoisted the 'Tri-colour' flag of Congress party on the 23.1.1946 to celebrate the birth day of Netaji Subhash Chandra Boss. This matter was reported to the then Maharaja by the State Diwan Sardar Ranbir Singh. It is stated that he had been taking active part in Prabhat Pheries, meetings and procession of the Dholpur Praja Mandal along with other students belonging to royal families. As per rule prevailing at that time, the then Maharaja had passed an order of externment from the State Territory of Dholpur in case of the petitioner in December, 1946. He returned back onl...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Roop Kalla Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC636; 2001(1)WLN635
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is a case which brings to the fore apathy of the petitioner driven from pillar to post by two authorities who have been statutorily entrusted with the task of discharging the obligations for execution of awards granting monetary reliefs under the Industrial Disputes Act and the employer, the University of Jodhpur (Now JNV University), another instrumentality of the State is making merry by not implementing the Award for making of payment even after expiry of a decade from the date of the award as the facts to be stated hereinafter shall presently reveal.2. The petitioner an employee of the respondent employer, the Jodhpur University, raised the dispute about termination of his services with effect from 1.6.1986. The said dispute was made subject matter of a reference made to the Labour Court, Jodhpur under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the said reference, Labour Dispute No. 59 of 1988, an Award was made on 12th December, 1990 declaring the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »