Rajasthan Court May 2000 Judgments
Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division Jalore and ors. Vs. Surendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC576; 2000(3)WLN405
ORDERSingh, J.(1). In Claim No. MAC Case 73/94 filed by Surendra Singh, who is respondent in this appeal, the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalore, by judgment dated 7.12.1996 awarded compensation of Rs. 64,846/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the award, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.(2). The facts of the case may be summarised as below:(3). According to the averments made in the claim petition, on 20.4.1993, at about 8.15 p.m., the claimant Surendra Singh and his brother Virendra Singh were going on the right side of the road on the 'kutcha' path towards the house of their uncle Bhanwar Singh. When both of them, reached near the house of Bhanwar Singh, one jeep No. RJ 14/1846 was coming from the front side. The jeep was driven at an excessive speed. The jeep hit Surendra Singh and, as a result, Surendra Singh received simple and grievous injuries and became unconscious. After t...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Kumar Swami Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN612
ORDERSharma, J.(1). Petitioner was not found eligible For appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III on the ground that while passing secondary examination he did opt 'Sanskrit' and not Hindi as one of the subject.(2). Zila Parishad Jhunjhunu in the advertisement dated June 16,1998 specifically mentioned that for seeking appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III a person must have passed Secondary Examination of 10+2 and Old Scheme Higher Secondary or equivalent examination from the Board of Secondary Education with five subjects including Hindi, English and Maths. In pursuance to the advertisement the petitioner submitted application on June 27,1998 and secured 102 marks but his name was not included In the select list as he did not opt Hindi In Secondary Examination.(3). In 1992 and 1995 the petitioner respectively passed Secondary and Senior Secondary Examinations from Central Board. Under the scheme of Secondary School Examination of Central Board from the optional subjects Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Railway Employees Co-operative Banking Society Ltd. Vs. Authority Unde ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR1008]; (2000)IIILLJ898Raj; 2000(1)WLC159; 2000(3)WLN344
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The above three appeals raise common issues and arise in identical facts and circumstances hence are heard and being decided by this common order.3. The appellant, Railway Employees Co-operative Banking Society Ltd., Jodhpur Division branch, Jodhpur, has come against the order of learned single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) holding that termination of services of the respondent Daulat Singh in Special Appeal No. 1006/1999 is contrary to the provision of the said Act and illegal. The said respondent No. 1 had lodged a complaint before the Authority under the Act alleging that he has been continuously in service for a period of not less than six months with the appellant Society, but his services were unceremoniously terminated w.e.f. January 1, 1993 without giving any notice and without...
Tag this Judgment!Gajraj Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR40]; 2000(3)WLC263; 2000(3)WLN425
ORDERShethna, J.(1). Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). The only objection raised by the learned counsel Mr. Mehta for the respondents is that there is a gross delay of about 4-5 years in filing the writ petition after the provisional award was declared. (3). Time and again, Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that atleast the State Government should not raise such technical plea. The substantial justice should be done and not technical one by the Court. (4). Innocuous prayer is made by the petitioner that the respondents be directed to honour the provisions awards Annex. 1 to 4 as affirmed by the final awards Annex. 5 to 8 immediately by directing the State Government to pay the compensation amount accordingly with interest over and above amount awarded at the rate of 18%.(5). It is known fact that 90% population of our country is living below the poverty line and when the poor agriculturists loose their only source of livelihood i.e. land on acquisition, ...
Tag this Judgment!Rawal Jayti Kalyan Kari Sanstha, Sirohi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC522; 2000(3)WLN438
ORDERShethna, J. (1). The petitioner-Rawal Jayti Kalyankari Sanstha, Sirohi has filed this petition and prayed that Rawal caste people of Sirohi District be allowed benefit of Scheduled Caste as per Constitution of India part XV entry No. 50 and further prayed that impugned order passed by the Collector, Sirohi dated 17.8.90 stating that persons belonging to Rawal caste of Sirohi District are not included in the category of S.C. be quashed and set aside. (2). From reply affidavit filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 is clear that Rawal Caste is different from Rawal Brahman of the Sirohi District and their main occupationis agriculture, service and Seva-Puja. There is voluminous documentary evidence on record to show that they do not belong to Scheduled Caste Category. (3). In view of the detail reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, which is not controverted by way of rejoinder, it must be held that the Rawal Caste of Sirohi District is not included in the Scheduled Caste Cate...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Lal Vs. Lal Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC732; 2000(3)WLN439
ORDERGupta, J.(1). The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition. However, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.(2). The plaintiff-non-petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,700/- on the basis of a promissory note dated 15.7.90. The suit was filed in 1993. On 11.7.94, the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner pleaded no instruction. Consequently, the suit proceeded ex parte and vide judgment and decree dated 6.5.96, a decree for a sum of Rs. 11,700/- alongwith pendente lite interest and future interest @ 18% was passed with costs. Thereafter, on 22.1.96, the present application was filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the said ex parte decree which application has been dismissed by the impugned order.(3). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after receipt of the summons, the defendant had engaged the counsel and since he carries on the business of road transpor...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Sogani and ors. Vs. Akhil Bharatiya Bank of Rajasthan Karmchari S ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj337; 2000(3)WLC36; 2000(3)WLN249
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. This special appeal has been preferred under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, questioning the order dated 27-9-99, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2094/99, between Akhil Dharatiya Bank of Rajasthan Karamchari Sangh v. Reserve Bank of India, whereby, the learned single Judge has directed the CBI, through its Director, Jaipur, to hold a thorough investigation right from the time when Bangur group had started purchasing shares of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited and then controlled the Bank as Managing Director/ Directors and by nominee Directors, and asto how and where and in what manner the amount of Bank was siphoned to the sister concerns of the Bangur group and as to how much amount is still due and how much returned or returnable for the purpose of criminal and civil consequences. The learned single Judge by his impugned order also directed the Reserve Bank of India to take immediate action under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC100; 1999WLC(Raj)UC274; 2000(2)WLN310
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. A large number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the process of selection, i.e. constitution of the selection committee and giving preference to the local residents as 'Shiksha Sahyogi' in Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathshalas under the Policy framed by the respondent-State vide order dated 23.4.1999 (Annx. 1). For the purpose of arguments, writ petition No. 2171/1999, Motion Lal v. State of Rajsthan and Ors., is taken to be a leading case.2. Petitioner claims that he was better qualified than respondent No. 6 but ignoring his claim, the appointment had been given to her vide order dated 27.5.1999 (Annx. 8). Hence this petition for quashing her appointment and giving appointment to the petitioner.3. This Court, prima facie, was not satisfied with the terms and conditions incorporated in the State Policy (Annx. 1) and, thus, issued notice to the learned Advocate General for examining the correctness of the selection process on 24.6.1999 as it provided for...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Chand Vs. Banwarilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC164; 2000(2)WLN313
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the appellant defendant against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant defendant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 6.2.1980 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar by which the learned Addl. Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent against the defendant appellant for Rs. 9133/- under Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C.2. It arises in the following circumstances:Note: That it may be stated here that as per the report of the learned District Judge, Hanumangarh, the original record of this case has been weeded out and the same is not available.3. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit in the lower court on 23.8.1979 for recovery of Rs. 7200/- as principal amount and Rs. 1944/-as interest total Rs. 9144/- on the basis of Pronote and Receipt alleged to have been executed by defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pala Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC421
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant on admission.The appellant New India Assurance Company has come up by way of this miscellanous appeal against the interim award dated 23.2.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 341/2000 filed by the claimant i.e. respondent No. 1-Pala Ram for award of Rs. 16,10,000/- by way of compensation and Rs. 25,000/- by way of interim compensation. The learned Tribunal vide aforesaid order awarded interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 1 while the claim petition is still pending for final adjudication by the learned Tribunal.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the liability of the either party is yet to be finally determined in the claim petition hence, the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to interim compensation.3. From the appeal it is averred that on 31.10.1998 respondent No. 1 was travelling in a bus from Sunderpura to T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »