Rajasthan Court July 2000 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Balraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC644; 2000(3)WLN248
ORDERShethna, J.(1). This group of petitions are disposed of by this common order as these petitions are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 30.5.98 passed by the Board of Revenue.(2) The impugned common judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue is challenged in all these petitions after a lapse of more men two years i.e. on 6.7.2000. Thus, there is a gross delay of more than two years which remained unexplained.(3). When asked, learned counsel Mr. Khatri for the respondent State was unable to give any explanation.(4). From the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.98 (Annex.9), it appears that for the first time, the State Government woke up from the slumber and applied for certified copy of the judgment only on 13.12.99 i.e. after 19 months from the date of order and though the certified copy was ready and received by the State Government immediately on the next day i.e. on 14.12.99, the State Government decided to challenge the impugned ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ286Raj; 2000(4)WLC669; 2000(3)WLN246
ORDERB.J. Shethana, J.1. The petitioner's services as Munshi i.e. clerk were terminated by way of retrenchment on October 1, 1990. He raised dispute before the competent authority and the reference was made to the Labour Court, Jodhpur for its adjudication. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the evidence on the record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioner was against law, therefore, by its award dated October 6, 1998 (Annexure 3), the said order of termination was set aside. However, as the petitioner was in fixed pay and appointed as daily wager and the post of Munshi i.e. clerk was also abolished, therefore, in its discretion, the Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs. 16,000/- to the respondent workman instead of passing the order of reinstatement with backwages. This part of the award giving compensation instead of reinstatement with backwages has been challenged by the petitioner workman.2. From the r...
Tag this Judgment!Tej Singh Manawat Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ153Raj
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner who is an employee of the respondent bank has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court, whereby the learned Judge of the learned Labour Court has found that the departmental proceedings held against the petitioner were proper and the punishment imposed was not disproportionate. 2. The petitioner has been penalised departmentally for misconduct which in the departmental proceedings was held proved by the enquiry officer and is proved by the Labour Court. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Bank, I have examined the rival contentions raised at the Bar and on scrutiny of the record, I find that the learned Judge has rightly observed that the departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner were proper. I see no reason to interfere with that finding. 4. The petitioner has been penalised for misconduct of insubordination. It was contended by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sappu Begum and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC627; 2000(3)WLN604
ORDERShethna, J. (1). The petitioners (i) Smt. Sappu Begum window of late Shri Hanif Khan, GO Nazzuddin son of late Shri Hanif Khan and (iii) Gulam Mustafa @ Mustafa son of Late Shri Hanif Khan have filed this petition before this Court on 14.7.2000 and prayed for the following reliefs:- '(i) the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 5.5.1995 (Annex.6) to the extent it held that petitioners are not entitled to be declared as Khatedars of the land, be quashed and set aside; (ii) the judgment/order passed by the Board of Revenue and the Revenue Appellate Authority to the extent that it should be seen that petitioner's possession should be regularised, should be interpreted by this Hon'ble Court to mean that petitioners should be bestowed upon the khatedari rights and respondents be directed to do so; (iii) the order dated 11.3.1996 (Annex.8) and consequential order dated 15.3.1996 (Annex.9) may kindly be quashed and set aside; (iv) the tender notice No. 213 dated 2.6.2000 may also be...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. Tikam Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC408; 2001(2)WLN564
ORDERGupta, J. (1). Heard learned counsel for the appellant.(2). Two questions have been mainly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.(3). First being that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court is wholly without jurisdiction in view of Ordinance No. 2/1992.(4). The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that according to Sec. 21, after amendment, the appeal against judgment and decree of the Munsif could not be heard by a Civil Judge, as the appeal according to Section 21, can be preferred to a District Judge and even u/S. 24, the appeals cannot be transferred unless transferee court is competent to hear the appeals, and since there is no Notification issued by the High Court, with previous approval of the State Government, u/S 21 authorising the Civil Judge to hear the appeals, the transferee court itself being incompetent, the impugned judgment and decree is thus without jurisdiction.(5). Learned counsel in this regard ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. Tikam Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj413
N.P. Gupta, J. 1. Heard Learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Two questions have been mainly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. First being that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is wholly without jurisdiction in view of Ordinance No. 02/1992. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that according to Section 21, after amendment, the appeal against judgment and decree of the Munsif could not be heard by a Civil Judge, as the appeal according to Section 21, can be preferred to a District Judge and even under Section 24, the appeals cannot be transferred unless transferee Court is competent to hear the appeals, and since there is no Notification issued by the High Court, with previous approval of the State Government, under Section 21 authorising the Civil Judge to hear the appeals, the transferee Court itself being incompetent, theimpugned judgment and decree is thus without jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Prasad Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj60; 2001(1)WLC190
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, questioning his suspension order dated 16-10-99, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, from the office of Chairman of Municipal Board, Laxmangarh, District, Sikar and order of judicial re-enquiry dated 11-5-2000, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-5 to the writ petition with a prayer to quash the aforesaid two orders passed by State Government. 2. The present writ petition is posted today, for admission. Counter-rejoinder has been exchanged between the parties. Although, the present petition is posted today for admission, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I propose to decide it on merits. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the suspension-order dated 16-10-99, Annexure-4 to the writ petition; and the order dated 11-5-2000, Annexure-5, directing judicial re-enquiry under Section 63 (3) of the Rajasthan Municipal Act, 1959 (Act No. 38 of 1959) (hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Meghraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN85
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This is a defendant No. 1 appellant's first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar by which he decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent in the manner that notice dated 1.5.1975 which was issued by the appellant-defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff respondent for recovery of Rs. 10,350/- was held null and void against the plaintiff respondent,2. It arises in the following circumstances:The plaintiff respondent filed a suit against the appellant-defendant No. 1 and one more other in the Court of District Judge, Sri Gangangar on 28.7.1975 stating that plaintiff-respondent and one more defendant No. 2 used to conduct business in the name of M/s Meghraj Bhawanidas at Karanpur for the sale of Lanced Poppy Heads. They have got a license for the year 1964-65 from the Excise Department. The District Excise Officer, Merrut, UP issued a permit No. 146 dated 22.12.1964 in favour of the firm...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Devi Vs. Nooruddin
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC608; 2001(1)WLN514; 2001(2)WLN346
ORDERKokje, J.1. Heard Shri J.S. Rastogi on admission. The facts of the case are that the non-petitioner-tenant has filed the suit against the petitioner-landlady for fixation of standard rent under Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). In the plaint, a copy of which has been placed before the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, prayer has been made to fix the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. The learned counsel submits that the entire suit is based on sub-section (2) of Section 6 and standard rent is sought to be fixed on the guidelines contained in clauses (a) & (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. The learned counsel further submits that a Division Bench of this court in Khem Chand vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1) has struck down sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the suit which is b...
Tag this Judgment!Fal Sabji Kreta Vikreta Vyapar Sangh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj358; 2000(3)WLC105
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned single Judge (G.L. Gupta, J.) dated 4-4-2000 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that amendment in the rules does not frustrate the object of the Rajas than Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (hereinafter, to be referred as 'the Act of 1961'). 2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant, which is a registered body, praying as under :-- (i) by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction declare the notification dated 31-7-1998 as ultra vires and completely against the purpose; (ii) by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the respondent that no such increase should be made by the State Government; and . (iii) by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction it may also be ordered that the State Government should recover the excess amount charged by the brokers after 31-7-98. 3. By notification dated 31 -7-98, the State Government has increased the rate of co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »