Rajasthan Court January 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Vs. the Judge Indust ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR33]; (2001)IILLJ110Raj; 2001(2)WLC128; 2001(1)WLN730
ORDERBalia, J. (1). Heard learned counsel for the appellant.(2). The appellant challenges the award made by the Labour Court, Bikaner on 24th June, 1998 in connection with the dispute referred to it relating to alleged illegal termination of services of Karani Singrrsince deceased now represented by his widow.(3). Karni Singh has raised dispute about his termination inter alia on the ground that he has been in continuous employment for a period of one year immediately before the date of his termination, his services were terminated by the present petitioner-appellant on 8.11.87 and termination of services was without complying with the provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'The Act of 1947').(4). The Labour Court finding that the said workman was employed by the M/s. Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Hanumangarh and the workman having been employed for 240 days during 12 calendar months immediately preceding the date of terminatio...
Hind Syntex Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC186(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal relates to order of reassessment passed by the assessing authority under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 for the assessment period 1994-95 under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 on 31st December, 1998. Originally challenge to the reassessment order for the assessment period 1994-95 was made by way of Original Application No. 42 of 1999 before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal along with demands raised for reassessment/provisional assessment in respect of assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 on the abolition of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, the said Original Application stood transferred to this Court and was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3469 of 1999. On the direction of the court the appellant-petitioner made separate writ petition challenging the orders of reassessment/provisional orders for assessment independently by filing the Writ Petition No. 3469 of 1999 for the assessment y...
Hind Syntex Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC490(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an appeal arising out of order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has an adequate efficacious and alternative remedy by way of filing the appeal against the order of assessment under challenge.3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant-petitioner which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in M.P. The appellant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various types of synthetic yarn and alleges that it maintains its depot at Bhilwara in the State of Rajasthan and also registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder.4. According to the case of the appellant that the appellant closed operation at its Bhilwara depot during October, 1996 and started selling goods directly from Dewas in the course of inter-State trade pursuant ...
Nathu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2171
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 2-7-1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra Camp Banner in Sessions Case No. 51/83 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rupees 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo nine months SI. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that in case of realisation of the said amount of fine, Rs. 1000/- as compensation be paid to the prosecutrix Smt. Devi.2. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that this Court vide judgment and order dated 14th December, 1999 rejected the appeal of the accused appellant. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 14th December, 1999, the accused appellant preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where SLP was granted and the case was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 509/2000. ...
Ramesh Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN451
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The accused petition is facing trial for violation of Order 20(1)(d) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 punishable under Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act for the incident of 25.10.1983.2. The present misc. petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Special Criminal Case No. 1/85 pending in the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act Cases, Pali, as more than 17 years have passed.3. This Court has taken the same view in so many cases, e.g. in the case of Kallu v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1999 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 14, this Court has quashed the proceedings finding the delay of more than 9 years in E.C. Act Case.4. Hence, the present misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings in Special Criminal Case No. 1/85 pending in the court of Special Judge, E.C. Act Cases, Pali are quashed....
Vishal Trading Company Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN735
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Learned Counsel for the parties state that this appeal arising out of the Writ Petition Nos. 1142/2000 and 4072/2000 raises identical issues in respect of regular assessment made for the assessment period 1997-98 in the hands of the petitioner- appellant in respect of goods which emanated from M/s. Hind Syntex Ltd. allegedly sister concern of M/s. Vishal Trading Co.3. The petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of availability of adequate and efficacious remedy under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. It is not the case of the appellant that he had not been given number of opportunities for hearing nor it is a case where validity of any provision of the Act, Rules or notification issue thereunder has been challenged. It is a case of alleging the order to be erroneous.4. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in not entertaining the writ petiti...
Anita Vyas Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC284; 2001(1)WLN436
ORDERShethna, J. 1. Short question arising in this petition is as to 'whether the married daughter of the deceased could be included in the definition of Family for the purposes of seeking appointment on compassionate ground?'(2). Avinash Chandra was serving in Telecommunication department as Supervisor. He died on 27.2.94 while in service leaving behind his widow Smt. Maggi Devi and his married daughter Smt. Anita Vyas. Except Anita, he has no other issue. On the death of her father. Smt. Anita applied for appointment on compassionate ground but she was denied appointment on various grounds, therefore, she had filed original application no. 228/96 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal by its order dated 5.10.2000 dismissed that application, therefore, she has filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.(3). Learned counsel Mr. Singhvi for the petitioner raised a technical contention regarding givi...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC249; 2001(2)WLN394
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant challenged the order passed by learned. Single Judge in SBCW Pet. No. 1926/1987 dated 18.3.97. In the writ petition, orders Annex. 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 were under challenge. While orders Annex. 4 to 7 relate to determination of area of agriculture lands held by petitioner under ceiling law and determination of Surplus land in excess of ceiling area prescribed. It is not in dispute that Board of Revenue has passed the order on 4.8.80 and that order has not been challenged by the petitioner anywhere until filing of writ petition. The learned Judge opined that in these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of those decisions in the garb of notice Annex. 8 dated 11.8.86 inasmuch as the challenge to those concluded orders passed in duly contested proceedings suffers from apparent laches which has not been explained by the petitioner.(2). About the notice Annex. 8 dated 11.8.86, the learne...
Smt. Hakri and ors. Vs. State of ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj4; 2001WLC(Raj)UC301; 2001(1)WLN719
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on computationsheet Annex. 1. The respondents have filedAnnex. R/1 and contested that there areobvious errors in the computation sheetAnnex. 1. In ward No. 8, there were threecandidates. Only two candidates have beenshown in Annex. 1. If three candidates areentered, then position becomes clear as evident from Annex. R/1. Comparing two documents, defect pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is obvious. Further a look at Annex. 1 shows that it hasbeen incorrectly prepared. Not only the votesof the petitioner have been wrongly mentioned but age of the petitioner Hakri hasbeen shown to be 466 years. Obviously onthe basis of such document, no interferencecan be done in the writ jurisdiction of thisCourt. If any case or grievance remains withthe petitioners, they will be at liberty to filean election petition before the Election Tribunal....
Assistant Engineer Vs. Babulal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR807]; (2001)ILLJ1234Raj; 2001WLC(Raj)UC87
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.2. As per the case of the respondent-workmen they were appointed and were declared permanent on the dates given in the table:NameDate ofappointmentDate of Semi permanent1.BabulalNov. 19761.1.792.JagannathSept. 19761.1.793.RamkanwariJuly. 19761.1.794.ChandJune. 1978June, 19805.KanhayalalJune, 1978June, 1980They were retrenched from service w.e.f. May 31, 1983 without any notice. According to them they had completed 240 days in one calendar year and that there has been non-compliance of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act') and there was also non-compliance of the other mandatory provisions of the ID Act. In such circumstances the respondent-workmen raised an industrial dispute and the State Government vide its order dated July 23, 1989 made a reference to the Labour Court, Kota. The appellant herein submitted a reply to the claim petition on October 25, 1990. According to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »