Rajasthan Court November 2000 Judgments
Mathura Das and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC603; 2001(3)WLN273
ORDERChauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking directions to the respondents to provide promotional opportunities alleging that there is complete stagnation in the cadre of Laboratory Boys.(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that pelitioners are working as the Laboratory Boys and their services are governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules, 1957') and Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Services Rules. 1971 (for short, 'the Rules, 1971'). Petitioners' grievance is that inspite of working for a long time, they could not to promoted as there is complete stagnation in their cadre hence the Court should issuedirections for providing promotional avenues. The respondents have contended that under Sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the Rules, 1957, there is a promotional quota to the extent of 15% in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks and as the petitioners want their promotion to the rank of Lab...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC359; 2001(2)WLN39
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J. (1). The petitioner Laxmi Narain is working on the post of the Assistant Store Keeper in the Deparlment of Atomic Energy, Rawatbhata. He has filed this writ petition making some allegations and complaints about the misuse of the public money by some Officers working in the Department but the alleged Officers have not been named in the writ petition.(2). In our view such kind of disciplinary proceedings can only be initiated against me erring office) (s) by the Management. The petitioner who is an employee by filing this writ petition wants to arrogate himself in the shoes of the Management. He has not impleaded any of the Officers against whom he had suspicion. This petition has been filed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to hold an enquiry against the persons who are not made parties to this writ petition.(3). It is settled law that no decision adverse to any party should be taken without giving the affected party an effective opportunity of mee...
Tag this Judgment!Gaushala Sri Karanpur Vs. State of Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC214; 2001(2)WLN36
ORDERPalbhlkak, J.(1). By this petition me petitioner has challenged the concurrent orders passed by the Revenue Authorities holding that the sale of agricultural land by the respondents in favour of the petitioner is void ab initio being hit by the provisions of section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Ad').(2). The petitioner is a registered trust created for the purposes of maintaining in good stead chattel in Rajasthan, it is devoted to maintaining, upbringing, feeding of cows and similar much animals in the area.(3). That the petitioner is duly registered with the Registrar of Gaushala at Jaipur under the provisions of the Rajasthan Gaushala Act, 1960, it is a purely charitable institution created for the purposes of maintaining the chattel as aforesaid. The petitioner would have end in mind, purchased 7 bighas of land in square No. 12. Chak No. 5F from one Buta Singh son of Surfoo Singh by a registered sale-deed and the petitioner Gau...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj184; 2001(4)WLC14; 2001(2)WLN536
ORDERBalia, J.(1). The appellant is the State of Rajasthan which challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 1.4.98 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1480/97 filed by respondent No. 1 M/s. Bhilwara Spinners Limited (for short, 'BSI.') and respondent No. 2 Mr. D.L. Birla, President and Shareholder of BSL, by which he allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 13th March, 1997 in case No. 65/97 raising a demand on account of deficiency in stamp duly and imposing penalty on the petitioner in relation to the instrument executed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan dt. 25th March, 1988 and registered on 28th March, 1988 by the Collector (Stamps), Bhilwara.(2). The instrument, which is focus of attention in this' appeal, reads as under:-'SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE DEED' This Lease Deed is made on the 25th Day of March, 1988 BETWEEN MESSRS BHILWARA SPINNERS LIMITED, thereinafter called the 'Lessee'), which expression shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the context, incl...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. Magha Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ680Raj; 2001WLC(Raj)UC208
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. Is it necessary for this Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in each and every case? This is the short question to be answered in this petition.2. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the answer is that this Court is not bound to interfere with each and every case, particularly when substantial justice is done in the matter to the respondent workman by the Labour Court while passing the award.3. The petitioners Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and its Chief Manager have challenged in this petition the impugned award at Annexure 1 dated December 17, 1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner whereby, the Tribunal modified the penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect to one without cumulative effect.4. The misconduct for which the penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and censure was imposed that being...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Jinendra and Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC381; 2001(1)WLN74
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.8.1998 passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur, whereby the original application preferred by the respondent Dealer under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act 1995 has been allowed and notice dated 29.7.1997 issued to the respondent by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad II, Jodhpur in exercise of powers conferred under Section 78 of the Act has been quashed and set aside.2. The brief fact giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:3. In the course of business the respondent placed an order to M/s Kamani Oil Industries, Kochi to supply a truck-load of coconut oil and send a demand draft for Rs. 4,70,000/- bearing D.D. No. 554376 issued in favour of M/s Kamani Oil Industries. The said-Industries sent 560 Tins of coconut oil vide bill dated 24.7.1997 to the respondent firm. The selling dealer at Tamil Nadu sent the said 560 Tins of coconut oil vide bil...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Ram Vs. R.P.S.C.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC399; 2002(1)WLN493
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29.4.1998 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3993/89 by which the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that in pursuance of advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer for holding the Joint Competitive Examinations for the post of Lower Division Clerks, applications were invited. The curriculum prescribed for the Joint Competitive Examination, 1986 reveals that different papers were prescribed for ordinary physcially fit candidates and those who are physically handicapped. The compulsory paper for both category of candidates was General Hindi carrying 100 marks. The candidates other than handicapped persons were required to opt from the Hindi Typing Test or English Typing Test as the second paper and those who were physically handicapped candidates were to chose one of the two different set of papers namely General Engli...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Lal Vs. Sriom and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1906; 2001(4)WLC498
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned dated 4.3.1998 rejecting the application moved by the appellant under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. I have also perused the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. After coming into force the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 8(3), 28, 38, 65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, 146, 176, 201, 211 and 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has framed the Rules. The State Government while doing so has framed Rule 10.28 prescribing the procedure to be followed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in holding inquiries and has specifically made a mention that only certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would be made applicable before every Claims Tribunal. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid Rule 10.28 makes it specific that all pr...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN567
V.S. Kokje, J.1. As these four petitions involve common questions of law and the facts involved in the petitions are also almost identical, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. The petitions relate to the contracts for sale of country liquor, Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Beer in various Groups of shops in various areas of the State viz. (I) (i) Beawar-Bijainagar-Kekri Group; (ii) Ajmer-Nasirabad-Kishangarh Group in Distt. Ajmer, which is involved in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1267/2000 (II) Kota-Ladpura-Digoti-Pipalda Group, which is involved in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1088/2000, (III) Raisingh Nagar Group, which is involved in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1270/2000 and (IV) Sojat-Marwar Group involved in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1276/2000. The contracts were for exclusive privilege for retail sale of country liquor in the area covered by the respective Groups and for sale of IMFL and beer in the wholesale and retail sale in the concerned l...
Tag this Judgment!Rama and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN369
ORDERShethana, J.1. For implementing the impunged award dated 30.4.1998 (Annex. 1) passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur in favour of respondents workmen this petition is filed by the petitioners workmen on 13.4.1998. Notice was ordered to be issued on 9.12.1998 making it returnable within six weeks and the respondents were directed to ensure the compliance of the award made in their favour, but the said order was not complied with in the sense that compliance of the award is not made so far. On 17.5.1999, the petition was admitted and it is pending since then. Reply affidavit is filed in this petition on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and in para No.6 of the same it is stated that:-'.....after the passing Award and after issuing the notification in official Gazette, the respondents submitted the writ petition challenging the Award dated 30.4.98 and the writ that the petitioner had been ordered to reinstate and as regards back wages the respondents are awaiting financial sanction ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »