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.
Ram Gopal Saini Vs. Judge, Labour Court No. Ii and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR778]; (2001)ILLJ1230Raj; 2001(1)WLC592
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1950/2000 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the Award dated March 24, 2000 passed in LCR No. 1084/1998 by learned Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur, by which the claim of the petitioner appellant was dismissed holding that the appellant-petitioner failed to establish the fact that Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have been violated by the respondent department.2. In this Special Appeal (Writ), the appellant-petitioner again reiterated the fact that the respondents have grossly violated the provisions of Sections 25G and H of the Act, and also the fact that the persons junior to theappellant have not only been retained in service but also given the status of 'semi-permanent employee'.3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage the learned single Judge held that learned Labour Court in its Aw...
Sewa Ram Vs. Firm Modaram Tulsiram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC312; 2001(1)WLN570
ORDERGupta, J.(1) This second appeal has been filed by the defendant againstthe judgments and decrees of the learned courts below decreeing the respondent'ssuit filed u/Order 37 C.P.C. passing a decree for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- along with costs.(2)._The substantial question of law involved in Ihe appeal is as under:-Whether even without issuing any summons for judgment under Order. 37 Rule 3 C.P.C. the suit can be decreed simply because the defendant had entered appearance in response to summons for appearance issued under Order 37 Rule 2 and under a misconceived notion happened to request the learned trial court to be granted leave to defend and the learned trial court happened to grant leave on the condition of the deposit of the entire suit amount in the court which amount the defendant failed or omitted to deposit?(3). Brief facts of the case are that on 14.12.93 a suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent alleging inter alia that the plaintiff is a tenant of a premises of the defe...
Murari Lal Sharma Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ44Raj; 2001WLC(Raj)UC288
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the State Bank of India by order dated December 1, 1982 on probation. His probation period was further extended. Meanwhile, in the year 1983 a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and during investigation he was arrested by the Police. On May 24, 1983 (Annexure 2 to the petition) an order was issued by the Bank stating that the petitioner being arrested by the Police on the charge of theft, exercising the powers in Para 522(1) of Shastri Award, his service is being terminated and he is being paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. The petitioner was tried for the offence under Section 380 IPC and was sentenced for one year's imprisonment. Later on in appeal the learned Addl'. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, set aside the order of conviction by order dated January 16, 1987. After acquittal the petitioner approached the Bank and made representation that since he had been acquitted, he be reinstated i...
Smt. Mehtab Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR501]; 2001(1)WLC625; 2001(1)WLN696
ORDERShethna, J.1. One cannot ask for appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right. Nobody has got a vested right to claim appointment on compassionate ground.(2). This petition is filed by Smt. Mehtab widow of deceased Ashraf Ali who died way back in 1978 while in government service. On 7.11.92, the petitioner made an application to the Additional Director (Administration), Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur for giving appointment to Arshad A!i S/o Shabir Ali. Smt. Hameeda, the real sister of deceased Ashraf Ali, husband of the present petitioner, is the wife of said Shabir Ali. Marriage of the petitioner's only minor daughter Khusnuma has been arranged with Arshad Ali. Thus, Arshad Ali is close relative of the deceased under the proviso to the definition of 'Family', therefore, Arshad Ali be given appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her husband. By a letter dated 14.8.95, the State Government denied appointment to Arshad Ali stating that he was...
Gurjant Singh Vs. Krishan Chander and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLN648
ORDERDr. Chauhan, J.(1) Vide order dated 7.9.2000, fifteen issues were framed in the election petition and three in [he recrimination petilton. Issues No. 3, 4, and 14 in the election petition are issues of law and are being taken first al the instance of Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned counsel for the returned candidate before proceeding on the issues of facts.Issue No. 3: Whether verification of documents contained in An-nexures. B,C,F,G,H,I,K,L, M,N and Schedule. I-A are not in accordance with the provisions of Order 6 rule 15 C.P.C. and if so, whether it can be treated as part of the Election Petition:-(2). Section 83(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act') provides as what should be the contents of an election petition. Clause (c) thereof provides that me petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code.')- Sub-section (2) thereof provides that any Schedule or Annexure-to ...
Niranjan Lal Yadav Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ152; 2001(1)WLN414
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parlies.(2). Special Appeal No. 40 of 1997 has been filed by R.S.R.T.C. questioning the correctness of the Judgment dated 22.8.1996 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.' 183 of 1995. Special Appeal No. 8 of 1997 has been filed by the claimants against the Judgment dated 22.8.1996 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 183 of 1995 whereby the Award dated 18.1.1995 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur has been reduced from Rs. 18,15,0007- to Rs. 14,55,0007-.(3). Mr. Sangeet Lodha, the learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC submitted that the learned single Judge has arrived at the finding that the dependency ought to have been worked out by the Tribunal after deducling from the consolidaled pay, the amount of perks as also the Income Tax which the deceased would have paid. He has further submitled that according to Ihe learned single Judge, Ihe possible Income Tax which would have been ...
Niranjanlal Yadav Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC270; 2001(2)WLC116
A.R. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Special Appeal No. 40 of 1997 has been filed by R.S.R.T.C. questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 22.8.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 183/1995. Special Appeal No. 8 of 1997 has been filed by the claimants against the judgment dated 22.8.1996 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 183 of 1995 whereby the Award dated 18.1.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur has been reduced from Rs. 18,15,000/- to Rs. 14,55,000/-.3. Mr. Sangeet Lodha, the learned Counsel appearing for the RSRTC submitted that the learned Single Judge has arrived at the finding that the dependency ought to have been worked out by the Tribunal after deducting from the consolidated pay, the amount of perks as also the income tax which the deceased would have paid. He was further submitted that according to the learned Single Judge, the possible income tax which would have been paid, ought...
Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1370
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused appellant against the judgment dated 10-7-2000 and order of sentence dated 13-7-2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 38/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant 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 him to undergo ten years' Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two and half years.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :-On 7-6-1998 at about 6-15 p.m., P.W. 8 Mohanlal, SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Pali City registered the FIR No. 196/98 (Ex. P/ 12) stating inter-alia that on 7-6-1998 at about 2-05 p.m. he received a secret information from Mukhbir to the effect that in Ashapura Tea Stall, which is situated on the main mandiya road, Pali, a boy aged about 20-22 years o...
Sadhu Ram Vs. Ghasi Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC596; 2001(4)WLN327
J.C. Verma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.12.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which application of the petitioner under order 41 Rule 27 had been dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court in the appeal filed by him. The application was moved by the present revision petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for producing on record by way of additional document, the sale-deed in regard to plot No. 199, Rishi Galav Nagar, Jaipur. It was further stated in the application that he had got his written statement amended in the trial court to the effect that two shops have been constructed on plot No. 199 which was denied by the plaintiff. The fact of any shops being vacant or being let out were also denied by the plaintiff. He stated that to prove the falsehood of the averments made by the plaintiff, he wants to place on record the sale-deed dated 19.10.1992 of which certified coy had been obtained on 27.12.1999. The lower...
Ramesh Ukawat Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC633; 2001(1)WLN488
ORDERShethna, J. (1). By a common order dated 2.1.1992 (Annex.1), 4 persons including the present petitioner were appointed as Lecturers (Assistant Professors) in the subject mentioned against their names purely on ad hoc basis as stop gap arrangement in a starting pay of Rs. 2200/- P.M. in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000 plus usual allowances at the College of Social Sciences & Humanities, Udaipur for a period upto 6.5.1992 or till a duly selected candidate joins or till further orders, whichever is earlier, with effect from the date they joint their duty in pursuance of this order. (2), The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Rajasthan College. Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner was extended From time to time till 25.6.98. By an order dated 25/26.6.98 (Annex.6), the respondent University appointed other persons as Assistant Professor on a starling pay being drawn by them during the academic session 1996-97 in the same pay scale with effect from 30.6.98 for a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »