Rajasthan Court December 2000 Judgments
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC700; 2007(2)WLN325
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned counsel Shri Anand Purohit, who appeared before the learned Single Judge for the respondents was directed to accept notice.2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is heard today as it is relating to denial of back wages to the appellant petitioner.3. The appellant petitioner was earlier appointed as Police Constable on probation by an order dated 19.6.1990. During probation he had quarrel with another trainee constable Ram Chandra on 20.9.1991. By an order dated 24.1.1992 (Annex. 1 to the writ petition) he was discharged from service on the aforesaid charges without holding regular enquiry into the matter. The translated version of the impugned order of termination dated 24.1.1992, which was reproduced by the learned Single Judge in his impugned order at page 20 reads as under:Shri Om Prakash, Constable No. 1679, was appointed as temporary. Constable vide order dated 19.6.1990 and was sent for t...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Ano ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC1; 2001(1)WLN588
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.1. The petitioner is presently working as Additional District & Sessions Judge in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. He was appointed as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate in the Year 1977 and joined duties on 14.2.1997 in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. According to the petitioner his judicial work has never been marked upon on the judicial side. The petitioner was also promoted to the post of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26.5.1990 and promoted to the Rajasthan Higher judicial Service on 9.2.1995. The petitioner was compulsorily retired vide order dated 9.11.2000. A copy of the order dated 9.11.2000, covering letter dated 11.11.2000 and the pay order sent along with the letter in lieu of three months notice have been filed and marked as Annex. 4, 5 and 6. II is also submitted that the petitioner had not been granted senior scale with effect from 13.8.1987 in the Rajasthan Judicial Service while persons junior to him were granted the said scale. Even on his rep...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Ghatiwal Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLN40
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The appellant-original petitioner has challenged in this special appeal the judgment and order dated 26.5.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1544/2000 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant petitioner challenging the impugned order of suspension dated 8.5.2000 (Annex. 6) and enquiry initiated against him.(2). The appellant-petitioner was elected as Member of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur in the election held on 26.11.99. A complaint was made against him by Shri Rajesh Borana that 4th child was born at the place of the petitioner on 20.10.99, therefore, he incurred disqualification under Section 26 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thereupon, respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 15.3.2000 (Annex. 2) against the petitioner calling upon him to explain within seven days. Reply dated 29.3.2000 at Annex. 3 was submitted wherein, it was contend...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Badam and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC29
ORDERVerma, J. (1) The appeal Nos. 449/99, 452/99 and 453/99 have been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited against the award dated 27.9.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi in MACT Case No. 133/89, in MACT Case No. 129/89 and in MACT No. 110/89 decided by the common order.(2) About 15 persons were travelling in a Matador No. RNG 1444 on 22.5.1989. The Matador over-turned resulting death of four persons and injuries to number of other such travellers. Claim applications were filed by different claimants which wereconsolidated and decided by one common order. In the written statement filed by the insurance company, it was pleaded that the Matador was insured as a commercial vehicle for cauying the goods whereas at the time of accident it was carrying passengers and there was a breach of condition of policy. Another defence being taken by the insurance company was to the effect that the driver of the vehicle had no valid license. Afore-mentioned appeal...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bhanwari Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC440; 2001(2)WLN21
ORDERGarg, J.(1). Since in all these Special Appeals common questions of law and facts arise, they are being decided by this common judgment.Facts of Special Appeals No. 1 and 2.(2). The necessary facts giving rise to Special Appeals No. 1 and 2 being D.B. Civil Special Appeals No. 25/2000 and 24/2000 respectively are as follows:-(3). On 9.3.1997, Harchand Ram and Kailash (hereinafter referred to as deceased No. I and deceased no. 2 respectively) alongwilh olher family members boarded in Truck No. RJ-19G-3811 after paying fare to the respondent No. 5 Puna Ram, driver of the said Truck for going to village Lohawat from village Sanvreej. The said Truck, on that day, was insured with the appellant. The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short 'the Assurance Company') and respondent No. 5 Puna Ram was its driver and respondent No. 6 Govind Singh was its owner. When the Truck in question reached near the field of Shri Bagar Ram near village Khara, it turned down due to rash andneglige...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Hanuman Das Chhagan Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC271; 2001(2)WLN62
ORDERSmethna, J.(1). These special appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and order as both of Ahem are arising out of common judgment and order dated 25.9.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions on various grounds.(2). Learned counsel Mr. Shrimali for the appellants vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error In dismissing the writ petitions only on the ground of alternative remedy. He submitted that though the petitioners had alternative remedy available to them before the Civil Court by way of civil suit, the said remedy could not be said to be efficacious remedy. Therefore, it cannot be said to be alternative remedy. He submitted that the remedy should not only be alternative, but it should be efficacious. He also submitted that both the writ petitions were of the year 1994 and pending before this Court for nearly 6 years, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Bhilwara Vs. Judge, Labour ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR1010]; 2001(4)WLC529; 2001(2)WLN46
Balia, J. (1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). On the application for urgent hearing filed by the respondent this case has been taken up today.(3), This petition arises out of the order passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara on an application moved by the respondent No. 2 u/S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') claiming arrears of emoluments which he was entitled under the award dt. 24th March, 1992 passed by the Labour Court andpublished by the Slate Government dt. 15th October, 1992 as a result of his reinstatement with 50% back wages.(4). According to facts as emerging from the record the respondent No. 2 was appointed by the petitioner Company on 1.6.82 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 30th May, 1984 and an industrial dispute has been raised by the respondent-workman about the validity of termination as the petitioner's claim. It was a case of termination of services of the respondent No, 2 but he voluntarily sought coming to t...
Tag this Judgment!Alka Khandelwal and ors. Vs. Gulab Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC702; 2001ACJ1001; 2001WLC(Raj)UC165
J.C. Verma, J. 1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 2.12.98 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the compensation of Rs. 4,29,500 was ordered to be paid in MACT Case No. 997 of 1995.2. The claim application was filed by the claimants widow and minor son and daughter of the deceased Raja Ram, who had died in motor accident occurred on 28.3.1995 when the car No. RSB 5787, in which he was travelling, had collided with the trolley No. RJ-01-G-1635. In the same accident, the other occupant of the car Premlata Khandelwal had also died. The trolley was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.3. On the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was 36 years old and on the basis of income tax return, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as per return for the year 1994-95 the yearly income of deceased was Rs. 50,000, out of which Rs. 5,000 had been paid as tax and the annual income of ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar and ors. Vs. Gulab Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC571; 2001ACJ1013
J.C. Verma, J. 1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 2.12.1998 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the compensation of Rs. 1,77,000 was ordered to be paid in MACT Case No. 996 of 1995.2. The claim application was filed by the claimants, sons of the deceased Premlata, who had died in the accident occurred on 28.3.1995 when the car No. RSB 5787, in which she was travelling, had collided with the trolley No. RJ-01-G-1635. In the same accident the other occupant of the car Rajaram Khandelwal had also died. The trolley was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.3. On the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was 53 years old at the time of accident and assessed the monthly income to be Rs. 4,000 and after deducting the income tax of Rs. 2,000 and on the basis of unit system awarded Rs. 1,72,500 along with the amount of expenses of cremation and compensation for loss to estate; a...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Construction Company Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN387
Hon'ble Verma, J.(1). Both the revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 2.9.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer by which order the order passed by the trial Court on 17.8.2000 on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC have been reversed holding therein that the plaintiff petitioner was not entitled for any interim order pending the civil suit.(2). The petitioner plaintiff was one of the applicant applying for tender for construction of Satellite Hospital at Adarsh Nagar, Amer as per the advertisement dated 11.5.2000. The tender forms could be purchased from the office from 10.6.2000 to 24.6.2000 and submitted upto 26.6.2000 when the technical bid was to be opened at 4.00 p.m. It was the requirement of the tender that the applicants were to purchase book-lets containing the details required to be filled up in the shape of two booklets called 'Technical bid' and the 'Financial bid'. The Technical bid and the Financial bid booklets co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »