Rajasthan Court August 2000 Judgments
Bheem Raj Vs. Rajasthan Patrika and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC721; 2001(1)WLN586
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.By the impugned order the learned court below has dismissed the petitioner's application for taking on record the documents produced by him and for summoning a case diary of which he cannot get certified copy.2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the whole burden of the impugned order is that according to learned court below the petitioner has not explained satisfactorily the delay, as it has been observed that the plaintiff is an Advocate and is having services of a Senior Advocate, and still he has not filed documents at the relevant time.3. Suffice it to say that a bare look at the list of documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint does show that the plaintiff did rely on various documents which were not filed at that time and it was expressly mentioned in that list that those documents will be subsequently filed. That apart the documents that have now been filed which are in question, also does show that many ...
Tag this Judgment!Brijlal Sringar Singh and Party Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC559; 2007(3)WLN76
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The facts in the present case which are not in dispute are that the petitioner firm is an authorised licensee in respect of Doda Posth (Doda grain) in the District of Sri Ganganagar and is entitled for distribution of said Doda Posth in the territory of Sri Ganganagar Municipality as well as Suratgarh Municipality. Its godown for keeping the stock is situated outside the Municipal limits of Sri Ganganagar.2. The truck No. RJ-09/G-0967, in which the poppy grain in question which were under transport rom Choti Sadari, District Chittorgarh to the godowns of the petitioner were seized outside the municipal limits, Sri Ganganagar while the truck was on its way to the godown which was also outside the city of Sri Ganganagar. The seizure was affected on 5th March, 1987 and the goods so seized outside the municipal limits of Sri Ganganagar were taken by the authority seizing the goods within the territory of Ganganagar Municipality for further action and thereafter handed ov...
Tag this Judgment!Chanan Ram Vs. the Inspector General of Police Raj., Jaipur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR224]; 2000(4)WLC532; 2001(1)WLN106
ORDERShethna, J.1. The appellant original petitioner Chanan Ram belonging to Scheduled Caste applied for the post of Constable in the category of ScheduledCaste for Hanumangarh District in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.8.97 which was lateron amended by an advertisement dated 16.9.1997. He was successful in written test and also physical efficiency, therefore, he was called for interview and selected for the post of Constable as per the select list published on 13.12.1997.(2). By a letter dated 10.3.1998 he was asked to remain present on or before 31.3.1998 and accordingly, he presented himself on 24.3.1998, but on that day he was denied appointment on the ground that he concealed the fact of criminal case being registered against him which fact was not mentioned by him in column no. 17 of the application form. That order at Annex. P/5 was challenged by him before this Court by way of writ petition no. 1311/1998 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 27.8.1998. The...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswant Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC324; 2001(1)WLN623
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant/original petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 27.2.1991 passed by the disciplinary authority on the charge that he unauthorisedly remained absent from duty for 332 days. His appeal before the appellate authority was also dismissed on 7.10.1991. Hence, he filed the writ petition No. 76/1992 before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.12.1998. Hence, this special appeal.2. The appellant was serving as Constable in the Police Department and posted at Sri Ganganagar. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 23.11.1989 for as many as four charges-(l) remaining absent from duty after the expiry of 3 days leave, (2) not complying with the transfer order dated 22.5.1985 whereby he was transferred from District Churu to Jaipur and not resuming duty at the transferred place, (3) for remaining absent continuously for 332 days and (4) producing doubtful medical certificate.3. Out of the aforesaid 4 charges, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamveer Tholia and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC399; 2007(3)WLN569
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This writ petition was filed by a practicing Advocate at Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court with the following prayer:(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the RPSC to prepare a list of candidate to the main examination by accommodating all reserved category candidates first in the general category if such candidates secured position in the general category on their merit standing and thereafter prepare a list for the reserved category candidates including the OBC category;(ii) declaring the part of Rule 15 of the Rules that permits preparation of the list of candidates to be admitted to the main examination from the candidates who were taken the preliminary examination category wise as violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. It is stated that this writ petition was filed in public interest so as to protect the interest of other backward classes to ensure that benefit of reservation to OBC category is not de...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra Teachers College Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj150; 2001(1)WLC176; 2001(2)WLN186
ORDERKOKJE, J. 1. This is a petition filed by a privately run educational institution conducting courses leading to the Degree of Bachelor of Education. The institutionis affiliated to Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. The course leading to Degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) is being conducted by the petitioner institution right from the year 1961. In the year 1964, the petitioner institution stated another course by the name of Bachelor of Education (Vacation Course) which is continuously being conducted since then. According to the petitioner, the education imparted in, what is known as B.Ed. (Regular Course) and B.Ed. (Vacation Course), is of the same standard and the only difference is that for the Regular Course, admissions are granted on the basis of the Pre-Teachers Education Test whereas admissions to the Vacation Course are granted by a Committee consisting of the Principal of the Institution and the Distt. Education Officer strictly as per the norms fixed for the purp...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chandra Das Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC318
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J. 1. By the present revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of takingcognizance for the offence under Sections 420,506 and 120B, IPC in that matter of dishonour of cheque. The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have already been initiated against the petitioners. The order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not been interfered with by this Court in another revision petition No. 294/1999. The proceedings under Sections 420, 506 and 120B, IPC cannot be said to be simultaneously maintainable with the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issue involved is basically dishonouring of the cheque. In facts and circumstances of the case, when proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are already pending, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings for the offence under Sections 420, 506 and...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesi P.N. Vs. Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR312]; (2001)IILLJ330Raj; 2001(1)WLN628
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The appellant/original petitioner was removed from service by the impugned order dated May 4, 1988 which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority by its order dated September 6, 1989. The said orders were challenged by him before the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4016/1989. This writ petition was dismissed on September 10, 1999.2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mridul appearing for the appellant raised the following contentions:(1) The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is totally a non-speaking order.(2) The appellate order is also a non-speaking order.(3) The respondents had appointed one retired judicial officer as an enquiry officer against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry but the request of the petitioner to engage a lawyer was not granted.Out of these three contentions, the third contention was not raised at all before the learned single Judge, therefore, there is no finding recorded by the learned singl...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Das and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC718; 2001(1)WLN305
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioners are transferee of land alloted to one Nanak Ram on 16.10.1957. Nanak Ram had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Shyamlal who had sold the land in question to the petitioners on different dates.3. According to facts recorded by the Board of Revenue whose order is challenged in this petition the transfer had taken place between 17.2.1968 to 18.2.1968. Whereas according to petitioners it is now contended that in fact it has taken place on 10.2.1967. As the land in question was governed by the Colonisation Act, under Section 13 of the said Act as it was in operation at the relevant time any said transfer or sub-lease or charge made without consent in waiting of the State Govt. or for officer authorised by the State Govt. in this behalf was void. Invoking this provision by order dt. 5.1.1968 the allotment made in favour of Nanak Ram was cancelled and the land was resumed in favour of the State. The Tehsild...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC250; 2001(1)WLN692
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petition is directed against the Award dated 4.4.1996 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara.3. The petitioner claims himself to be the workman employed as Painter on daily rated basis since 1st July, 1986 until July, 1992 in the Public Works Department of the State of Rajasthan. His claim, thereafter, is that his services have been dispensed with without living him any notice or wages in lieu of one month's notice as required under Section 25F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also that no payment of compensation under Section 25-F(b) of the Act has been made. The petitioner has not only claimed that he is in continuous service since 1986 and is entitled to protection under Section 25F being in continuous service for more than a year in terms of Section 25-B(l) but he has also contended in alternate that even during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding the alleged termination of service he has actually wor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »