Rajasthan Court July 2000 Judgments
Shambhoo Kumar Vs. District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1563Raj; 2000(3)WLC113; 2000(3)WLN25
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Dr. D.S. CHAUHAN, J. dated July 27, 1998 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 144/1998. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. The writ petition was filed praying for a direction that the respondents may be directed to continue the petitioner in service in pursuance to his appointment order dated August 22, 1996 and he be treated continued in service as if his services are never brought to an end.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents the appellant was appointed to the post of L.D.C. as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Subordinate Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. Alongwith the appellant 17 other L.D.Cs. were appointed initially for a period of 4 months and, thereafter, extension was made vide Annexure-2 dated May 20, 1997 whereby the services of the appellant were also extended upto December 31, 1997 upon terms ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC306; 2000(3)WLN20
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 22nd June, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, allowing the original Application No. 126/92 filed by the respondent No. l in the Jodhpur Bench of C.A.T. on 19.3.1997.2. The respondent has filed the application before the Tribunal alleging that the applicant was appointed as a casual labour on daily wages basis on January 20, 1962. From the date of appointment to 13th September, 1986, the applicant held number of posts. He was appointed on regular post of Trolley Man after qualifying the prescribed screening test by order dated June, 15, 1977. By order dated September 13, 1986, the applicant was promoted as Permanent Way Mistry and he worked on that post till he superannuated on 31st July, 1996. However, he was not paid his pension as the pension payable to him has not been determined for want of his lien on any post in the service. The applicant claimed that his lien should ...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ram and ors. Vs. Basti Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC494; 2000(3)WLN93
ORDERYamin, J.(1). This is a revision against the order of learned Civil Judge (SD), Bhinmal dated 28.11.1994 by which he dismissed the applications of the defendants to grant them leave to defend the suit.(2). Briefly stated, plaintiffs filed a suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 18, 900/- against the defendants on the basis of a pronote alleging that the defendant No. 1 is the Karta of Joint Hindu Family while defendant No. 2 is minor and that defendant No. 1 took loan of Rs. 15,000/- for the legal necessity of Joint Hindu Family at Bagauda and executed a pronote. Learned District Judge, before whom the suit was originally filed, issued notices to the defendants in Form No. IV and the defendants put their appearance on 7.9.1992 i.e. within ten days of service of summons as the summons were served on them on 31.8.1992. Later on the suit was transferred to the learned Civil Judge because of change of jurisdiction. Notices were then sent to the defendants. Defendants No.1 and 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. Shiv NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR220]; (2002)IVLLJ683Raj; 2000(4)WLC445; 2001(1)WLN508
ORDERShethna, J. 1. The respondent workman was working with the petitioner corporation since 1977 as driver. On the charge of remaining absent from duty on 7.2.83 and 17.3.83 he was punished with stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. This was challenged before the Labour Court in reference by the respondent workman. The Labour Court found that for remaining absent from duty without prior sanction is a serious mis-conduct. Therefore, it was of the opinion that some punishment has to be imposed against the workman so that in future he may not indulge in this type of mis-conduct, therefore, for causing pecuniary loss to the corporation the Labour Court ordered the workman to pay Rs. 4100/- to the corporation in place of penalty of stoppage of three increment with cumulative effect and accordingly the punishment was modified. This part of the award has been accepted by the workman, but challenged by the petitioner corporation by way of this writ petition. (2) Learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Sumar Khan Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ43; 2000(4)WLC364; 2001(1)WLN114
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner Sumar Khan has challenged the detention of his brother Beebuda alias Birbal Langa resident of 6-Dhani Mohangarh, Police Station Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer. The District Magistrate, Jaisalmer in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(2)(3) of National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as NSA) having satisfied that with a view to prevent Beebuda from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, directed to detain him by order dated 28th August, 1999. He was arrested and the order of detention as well as grounds of detention were served on him on the same day. It appears from the ground of detention that the detenu was found indulged in antinational activities including sending of information to I.S.I. through I.S.D./P.C.O. and his activities were prejudicial to the national security. He was also found indulged in the smuggling of arms, ammunitions and drugs. The first respondent-Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Hazari and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1298; 2000(4)WLC432; 2001(1)WLN536
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 18-1-1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, Chittorgarh by which he convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and sentenced each of them to ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I. for two years.2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :-On 21-1-1997, S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali, Chittorgarh Shri Ganpat Singh Chouhan, PW. 13 received a secret information that two persons having opium with them are travelling by Roadways Bus from Neemach to Delhi and the Bus is likely to arrive at Bus Stand Chittorgarh at about 8.45 p.m. That information has been reduced in writing to make the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and, th...
Tag this Judgment!Tej Singh Sarupriya Vs. the Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj225; 2000(4)WLC423; 2001(1)WLN19
Mathur, J.1. This Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordianance is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated ,25th April. 2000, dismissing the writ petition.2. The appellant -- writ petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to quash the Memo of Understanding (in short 'MOU') dated 22-1-2000 (Annex. 2) entered between the first respondent--Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. (in short ('RSMML') and fourth respondent -- M/s American International Health Management Ltd. (in short AIHML) to set up a hospital in joint venture by leasing out a plot of land measuring 18,432 square feet and contributing Rs. one crore (being 10%) to the equity of the hospital project). The petitioner has also sought a direction to quash the approval granted to the said MOU in the 320 the meeting of the Board of the RSMML, held on 30th March, 2000 (Annex.4). A further prayer was made to direct the first res...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Bharat Motors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR605]; (2000)IILLJ1502Raj
Dr. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur through its Regional Director against judgment dated April 27, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge of the Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No 159/2000. The said appeal was filed by the Corporation to declare the judgment and decree passed by the E.I. Court as illegal and to quash the same.2. The E. I. Court has held that the respondent is not a 'factory' as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act of 1948 for the reason that ten or more employees were not in the employment of it as required by Sub-section (12) of Section 2 of the Act of 1948 for holding an establishment as a factory. This Court has also held that there was violation of the provisions of Section 45-A of the Act as no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent-employer. It is the case of the appellant (herein) that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the employer, and, that Section 45-A has no application in...
Tag this Judgment!Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Comm ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR100]; (2000)IILLJ1504Raj; 2000(3)WLC120; 2002(1)WLN206
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Hon'ble Justice Ms. GYAN SUDHA MISRA, dated of January, 29, 1998 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3007/1997. The appellant is a hospital run by an autonomous body, which is a charitable hospital and as per the government requirement number of patients are treated totally free of cost. According to the appellant, for the employees working in the hospital and covered by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the management is paying contribution with respect to their own employees are concerned and are complying with the provisions of the Act. The open space leading to the hospital building is in possession of the management and is leased out to lessee on year to year basis and the lessee to whom the open place is leased out carries thereon the business of cycle stand by making his own arrangements and the employees employed with the lessee are un...
Tag this Judgment!Har Narayan Tandon Vs. Jaipur Smelting Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas231(Raj); [2004]50SCL192(Raj)
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. This petition is filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') for winding up of the respondent-company, duly incorporated under the provisions of the Act, having its registered office at H-115, Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur. The respondent-company is carrying on business of production of copper wire and selling the same throughout the country. For the purposes of manufacture the company purchases copper bars from open market as well as from MMTC and Hindustan Copper Ltd. (HCL).2. It is alleged that on May 25, 1992, the respondent-company requested for giving financial assistance by way of loan of Rs. 1,30,000 for purchase of raw material from HCL. The petitioner purchased demand draft No. 277194 dated May 29, 1992, drawn on the Punjab National Bank of Rs. 1,30,000 and delivered it to the authorised representative of the respondent-company. The demand draft was given to HCL. Thereafter, vide letter dated June 6, 1992, again...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »