Rajasthan Court April 2000 Judgments
Bajrang Lal Laxmi NaraIn Dadli Deedwana Regd. Partnership Firm Vs. Jee ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN319
R.R. Yadav, J.1. It is comeuppance for this Court to decide the present case involving horrendous deeds of fabricating false evidence leading to prima facie offence against public justice eroding credibility of administration of justice compelling this Court to recall its order dated 23.8.1999 under Article 215 read with Section 151 CPC to keep the record straight. This Court being court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution owes a duty to itself to ensure that its records are free from any blemish or error as these records are preserved for well being of posterity, symbolizing eternity. If any such error is brought to its notice in any manner whatsoever and at any time whatsoever it is to be corrected to keep the record straight in accordance with law.2. The amazing but true facts of this case are so repugnant to my judicial sense of decency that it becomes sudorific and painful for me even to narrate the facts which compel this Court to recall its order dated 23.8.1999 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Birbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN218
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge holding that the excavator which are machines mounted on tyres and are capable for using roads, fall within the definition of Motor Vehicles within the meaning, of Motor Vehicles Act and therefore are exigible to tax under Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act as Motor Vehicles.2. Both the learned Counsel state that in like circumstances similar question has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Birla Cement Works & another v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 149/2000 decided on 24.2.2000 by holding that before determining tax under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, an opportunity of hearing is necessary to be given to the tax payer in which tax payer is entitled to raise an issue that machines in question are not motor vehicles within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and that even if they are motor vehicles, the same are not liable to tax because domi...
Tag this Judgment!ishwarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN219
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant has raised an Industrial dispute about his alleged termination of service from February, 1992. He was working as daily rated workman since 1.4.1991. His wages were Rs. 22/- per day. Initial orders of appointment were in writing. However after November, 1991 to February, 1992 no written orders were there and he was asked verbally to work. The services were also terminated verbally from March, 1992 without following the procedure required for retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. He has completed continuous service of one year within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and he was entitled to benefit of protective provisions governing the valid retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents in their reply to the claim admitted that the workman has worked as daily rated for 183 days from 1.4.1991 to 30.9.1991 and thereafter he had voluntarily left his services a...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director Esic Vs. Bharat Motors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC144; 2000(2)WLN304
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated. 29.5.1998.2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 29.5.1998 shows that the application filed by the respondent Bharat Motors has been allowed because the provisions of Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 are not complied with. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 was not applicable and, therefore, there is no necessity of giving and opportunity of hearing or of showing cause to the respondent before passing the order of demanding the sum of Rs. 16,196/- from the appellant.3. I have carefully perused the provisions contained in Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. This Section empowers the corporation to determine the amount of contribution payable in respect of the employees of the factory or establishment in all cases including where no returns, particu...
Tag this Judgment!Chet Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN622
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Eleven accused persons were put to trial for offences under Sections 302, 307, 325, 323, 147, 148, 149 and 201, I.P.C. All the accused persons, except appellant Chetram, have been acquitted of offence under Sections 302, 307 and 325. I.P.C. They have been convicted for offence under Section 323/149. I.P.C. The appellant Chetram has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 323 and 147, I.P.C. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment for offence under Section 302, I.P.C. No separate sentence has been passed for minor offences.2. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is as follows:P.W. 1 Nandram was an employee on the shop of Surjaram, the father of the appellant Chetram. A sum of Rs. 1507 were advanced by Surjaram to P.W. 1 Nandram. On 10.2.1970 at about 3.00 P.M. accused Chetram visited the house of Nandram and asked him to repay the loan. An oral altercation took place between them. Chetram left the place giving threat to Nandram to teach him ...
Tag this Judgment!Ved Prakash Bhambari Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN154
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed by this Court on the ground of delay and laches. The petition was filed on 18.5.1999 challenging the orders dt. 30.10.1995, 16.11.1995, 8.10.1996 and 13.3.1997 the last of which has been made more two years before filing of the petition. There being no explanation furnished in the petition the Court by its order dt. 1.7.1999 directed the petitioner to explain as to on what basis petition has been preferred after 26 months of the impugned order. However no affidavit was filed until 7.8.1999 and the petition was dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay---filed on 15.9.1999. Learned Counsel for the appellant wanted time to file an affidavit explaining the delay in filing the petition for which two weeks time was granted. Since then the matter has already been taken up and atleast three times the matter has come up before the Court for order, yet no affidavit has been filed until now even after expiry of mo...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mahendra Kaur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC644; 2000(4)WLC260; 2000(2)WLN718
ORDERNaolekar, J.(1). Admittedly on 12.1.1990 Jarnel Singh died in an accident of vehicle No. DEG 4463. Jarnel Sing was the driver of the vehicle. The claimants filed claim petition before the Commissioner Workman's Compensation Act claiming compensation of rupees two lakhs with interest at the rate of eighteen percent. Claims Tribunal after consideration of the material placed on record had reached to the conclusion that deceased Jarnel Singh died during the course of and arising out of the accident. The Claims Tribunal assessed his age at the time of his death as 30 years. A finding was also recorded that he was drawing Rs. 1230/- at the relevant time and applying Section 4(1)(a) has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,02,326.16p. Aggrieved by the said order the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.(2). It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that even assuming all findings arrived at by the court of the age of the deceased and his earning to be correctthe compensation ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirath and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC188; 2000(2)WLN292
ORDERShethna, J.(1). All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as common question of law is involved in these petitions.(2). Learned counsel Sh. Sharma for the petitioners in all these petitions submitted that Settlement Officer issued Parcha Lagan in favour of entire village people including the present petitioners, but some how or other, references were made only in these four cases by the Addl. Collector and the same was accepted by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its power under Sec. 9 read with Sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. He submitted that same is in clear violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. He also submitted that reference made by Addl. Collector himself was without jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside.(3). In support of his above submission, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in case of the State of Rajasthan vs. Gamer Dan & Anr. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN188
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This matter comes up on an application filed by the appellant for early hearing of the matter. While granting the application, we have heard the appeal itself.2. The respondent No. 1 who is a member of Scheduled Caste has filed a writ petition in the year 1989 alleging that she has been appointed as a peon at the Rajkiya Chikitshalaya Lordia as a peon since 5.8.1976 and is continuously working there as a peon. However from the beginning she has been paid Rs. 75/- per month only. In the circumstances claiming a right to be paid wages as are applicable to the post of peon on the principle of equal pay for equal work, she claimed regularization and payment of salary in the regular pay scale applicable for the post of peon from the date of her initial appointment.3. In reply to the writ petition State Government has taken the stand that the applicant petitioner did not fit in the frame-work of regularisation scheme and to be paid in regular pay scale because she has been...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN181
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. We are in agreement with the conclusion of the learned single Judge that no case for substantial injury calling for interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction has been made out.3. From the map of the disputed land in question showing the existing outlet the proposed new outlet and the water course already been constructed, it is apparent that earlier to order under challenge a very large area of two chaks No. 19 or 20 SDS was being served with irrigation water through outlets at stone No. 20 & 24 from the said area a new chak was carved out as chak No. 19 SDS (B) situated in the command of the down stream to be served by providing a new outlet at stone No. 18 without making any change in the existing outlet which were to serve the remaining area of the existing chak No. 19 SDS, marked as 19 SDS (A), and 20 SDS.4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that because of the opening of new outlet down stream wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »