Rajasthan Court December 2000 Judgments
Bhupendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Raja ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN651
ORDERHon'ble Misra, J. (1) The petitioner sought admission into the STC Coarse by virtue of judgment & decree passed by the trial Court in a suit which had been filed by the petitioner for seeking admission into the STC Course, ll is informed to this Court that the appeal preferred by Ihe respondents before the District Judge, Karauli also failedagainst which the respondents have preferred second appeal. It is further stated that although the respondent-Departmenlof Education could not Service any order of stay in their favour against the admission of the petitioner in the STC Course, they have not declared the result of the petitioner for the STC Course.(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Garg submitted that the question of declaration of result is a fresh cause of action as the petitioner is already a decree holder in regard to his admission against which the respondents could not secure any order of stay as already stated hereinbefore and therefore the appearance of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Vishnu Lal Nai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1178Raj; 2001(2)WLC437; 2001(2)WLN174
ORDERShethna, J.(1). It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Parma Nanda (1), held that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the penalty imposed on the delinquent employees by the competent authority on the ground that it was not commensurate with the delinquency of the employee but in that very judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out an exception to the Rule.(2). It is also true that in case of Union of India and another vs. G. Ganayutham(Dead) by LRs. (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ordinarily, the Court shouldnot substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishmentawarded by the competent authority and the matter should be remanded to theauthority itself on the point of punishment.(3). A short but interesting question involved in this writ petition is 'whether this Court is bound to interfere with each and every order passed by the subordinate court or Tribunal in its supervisory jurisdiction...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN326
ORDERBalia, J. (1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The petitioner challenges the award dt. 15.10.99 (Annexure- 9) to the extent it has refused the reinstatement after finding the retrenchment of the petitioner by the respondent-employer was in violation of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') and not valid and has granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 90,000/- in all as the compensation in lieu of reinstatement. (3). In the first instance learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by catena of decision of Supreme Court law has been well settled that on finding retrenchment to be invalid in non-compliance of any provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act of 1947, the reinstatement is necessary consequence but the matter of grant of back wages may be within the discretion of adjudicating Tribunal and therefore the Labour Court was patently in error In denying the reinstatement on the basis of decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Deve...
Tag this Judgment!Rajanti and ors. Vs. Nihal Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC110; 2002ACJ1921
J.C. Verma, J.1. This civil misc. appeal has been preferred against the award dated 3.4.1997 passed in Claim Case No. 57 of 1994 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, whereby the claim of the claimants filed by the widow and the minor daughters of the deceased Lohare had been dismissed.2. A claim application was filed by the appellants for compensation because of loss sustained by the appellants on the death of Lohare Ram in the accident having taken place on 1.7.1994 near Hadoli when he was crushed by bus No. RJU 5691 driven by Nihal Singh. The deceased was removed to the hospital, but died after few hours of admission. F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station, Suroth. The bus owner was Abid Ali. The bus was insured with respondent No. 3. A challan/charge-sheet was also filed by the police against the driver under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was 40 years of age.3. Issues in regard to accident, negligence and compensation and also of the driving l...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Das Majumdar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN301
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Although, all these aforesaid 26 writ petitions are posted today, for admission but with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, I propose to decide these writ petitions on merit, at admission stage.2. In the aforesaid writ petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, all these writ petitions can be disposed of by a composite order. While deciding these writ petitions, by a composite order, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 624/2000 is treated as a leading case.3. All these writ petitions have been filed, challenging the validity of the notification, dated 21.7.1999, Annexure-R/5 to the reply, whereby, the State Government, in exercise of its powers, conferred Under Section 32 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1948'), constituted Registration Tribunal, consisting of the persons, named therein, for entertaining applications for registration, accompanied by prescribed fee of Rs. 800/-, within a period of three mon...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Minicipal Board Barmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC700; 2001(2)WLN422
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Administrator, Municipal Council, Banner dated 16.8.89 (Annx. P/9) by which he ordered that since the Municipality is not in a position to pay compensation for the private land of the petitioner falling in the 15 ft. street kept on the western side of the respondent's house on account of setting of building line, the street between imaginary line starting from building line No. 10 at Point No. 18-A to 18-B and from 21-A to 21-B south to north be closed and land falling in between shall remain property of the respondent applicant. The petitioners were aggrieved with that order inter-alia on the ground that the Administrator, Municipal Council had no jurisdiction to make such order for closing a public street on which each member of the public had right to pass and re-pass, in this manner on an application by one of the owners of the adjacent buildings.(3). Learned counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Pharmacy Council, Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC722; 2001(2)WLN434
ORDERYadav, J.(1). The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Rajasthan Pharmacy Council through its president, Sri Ramesh Ojha, which is a body corporate within the meaning of Section 22 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire or hold property both moveable and immovable and can sue and can be sued by the said name. It is prayed in the present petition that the order impugned dated 22nd January, 2000, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, passed by the State Government, whereby the services of Sri Subhash Chandra Pant, Registrar, Rajas than Pharmacy Council, has been withdrawn with a direction to the council to appoint a new Registrar in accordance with law, be quashed.(2). Although the present writ petition is posted today for admission but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I purpose to decide it on merits, at admission stage.(3). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmender and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC666; 2001(1)WLN650
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners impugning the order dated October 30, 2000 of the learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur whereby charges against the petitioners were framed in the following manner.Petitioners Dharmender, Kailash Chand, Sunil and Banwari--Under Sections 148, 451, 336 read with 149, 302 IPC. In the alternative 302 read with 149 and 307; in the alternative 307 read with 149 IPC.Petitioner Ms. Sunita--Under Sections 148, 451, 336, 302 IPC. In the alternative 302 read with 149, 307 and in the alternative 307 read with 149 IPC.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there were no sufficient cause for the proceeding against the petitioners in the manner the learned trial court has proceeded. The trial court framed alternative charges in complete contravention of the mandate of Section 222 Cr. P.C., therefore, the impugned order legally warrants to be modified. It is further contended that the legislat...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shakila and Others Vs. Veer Singh and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC189; 2001ACJ1309; 2001(1)WLC547; 2001(2)WLN360
ORDERHon'ble Verma, J. (1) The present Misc. Appeal No. 1030/2000 has been preferred against the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by Commissioner under Workman Compensation Act by the dependants of workman Nijamuddin @ Nijju Khan. The connected appeal, which is under defect, has been preferred by Ihe employer Veer Singh.(2). For Ihe reason that both the appeals have arisen out of the same accident and relating to same parties, therefore, il was ordered that the appeal filed by the employer be attached and bolh the appeals are being decided by this common order. The registry shall put regular number of appeal as the formal defects are waived and also for the reason that decision of the appeal No- 1030/2000 shall also be applicable to Ihe appeal filed by employer.(3). The deceased Nijamuddin was admittedly an employee of employer Veer Singh, who was employed as driver of the truck No. RJ-01/G-790, while Nijamuddin was on duty on 17.1.99 and under Ihe employment of Veer Singh, he was detailed...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. Barmer Vs. Smt. Chandra @ Chandrawati
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1163; AIR2001Raj168; 2001(2)WLN51
ORDERGupta, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The only point urged by [he [earned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal was in error in not making deduction to the extent of 1/3 as provided in II Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereafter to be referred to as 'the Act' as the award has been made by the learned Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Act.(3). The learned counsel for the claimants respondents contended that since the income of the deceased was found to be beyond Rs. 40,000/- and since the award was made under Section 163-A, considering the maximum ceiling of the income as provided in the II Schedule, no deduction was required to be made.(4). The learned counsel for the claimant respondents then contended that since the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/-, the claimants were entitle' to be awarded the compensation on the basis of income of the deceased, in proper of the scale as provided in the II Schedule, and since while c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »