Rajasthan Court December 2001 Judgments
Kesha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj575; 2002(4)WLC672; 2003(1)WLN502
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been field by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 24.9.1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions Case No. 8/86 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced him to undergo ten years RI and to pay fine of Rs. One lac, in the default of payment of fine; to further undergo RI for one year.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 17.1.1986, P.W.1 Khangar Khan, ASI in Police Station Samdari District Barmer while on patrolling alongwith Bhanwar Singh and Nawal Kishore (PW2) near Sarhad Melee Bandha, received a secret information from mukhbir to the effect that accused appellant Kesaram used to deal in illegal business of opium and he had opium in his possession at his house. Thereafter, he alongwith two motbirs PW5 Madha Ram and PW6 Heera Ram reach...
Tag this Judgment!Takshila Hospital Ltd. and Kishan Singh Deora Vs. Dr. Jagmohan Mathur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas343(Raj); 2002(4)WLC609; 2003(2)WLN250
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Dr. Jag Mohan Mathur and others had filed a petition for winding up Takshila Hospital Ltd. on the ground that it is just and equitable as envisaged under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, to wind up the company because of various alleged malpractices and misdeeds attributed to the management of the company. The petitioners are shareholders and contributories of the company.2. By the order under appeals, the learned company judge opining that a case for winding up of the company is made out by the petitioners who are contributory shareholders as stated in Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') but he has thought it fit that it is more appropriate that instead of ordering winding up, alternative remedy under Section 397 of the Act be invoked. He therefore did not admit the petition, and for this purpose an option was given to the petitioners to move an application under Section 397 of the Act within six weeks before the Company Law Boa...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Bohra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj559; 2002(2)WLC9; 2002(5)WLN483
Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner was employed in the Medical Department and was appointed as Sanitary Inspector by order dated 18.9.1957. He was promoted on the post of non-medical Supervisor by order dated 28.10.1978. The petitioner was given selection scale under the Circular dated 25.1.1992 (Annex. 1) issued by the Government on account of the fact that he was not given promotion in spite of the service of 18 years in the Department. After grant of the selection scale, the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. As the petitioner was not given the third selection scale on completion of 27 years of service, he has approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The petitioners writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 25.11.1997 on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to maximum pay scale of Rs. 1690- 2900, which he is already getting, because there is no higher post available for the petitioner unless, he has been selected for t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Akhlesh Kumar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2347
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 15-11-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sheoganj, Dist, Sirohi by which on the application of the complainant as well as accused after attesting the compromise for offence under Section 406, IPC acquitted the accused respondent for the offence.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances :(i) The accused respondent had obtained loan to the tune of Rs. 22000/- under the Literate Unemployment Scheme from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Shivganj on 7-12-1984 and executed documents in favour of the complainant-Bank and the goods purchased by this loan were hypothecated and hypothecation deed was also executed in favour of the Bank, but the accused respondent disposed of said goods and thus, he committed criminal breach of Trust and for that a report was lodged by the Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Shivganj in the Police Station Sh...
Tag this Judgment!State of Raj. and anr. Vs. Vasna Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC383
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2139/2001 by which the labour court award dated 20.11.2000 has been upheld.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government vide order dated 4.12.1996 made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as towhether termination of the workman w.e.f. 24.2.1993 was in accordance with law and if not to what relief he was entitled for. In pursuance of the said reference, the labour court made the award dated 20.11.2000 in favour of the workman holding that termination of his services had been in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act particularly compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 2...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Prakash and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN28
Verma, J. 1. This court vide order dated 24.11.2001 had directed forgetting third medical opinion about the respondent No.3 with the further direction thatrespondent No.3 shall make it convenient to appear before the Medical Board i.e. ArmyR & R Institution and Hospital Delhi Cantt. and that after conducting the examinationthe report shall be forwarded to this court. The case was ordered be listed for furtherproceedings after receipt of the report. 2. The above said order dated 24.11.2001 was challenged before the Division Bench by filing SAW No. 1070/2001. The SAW came to be decided on 6.12.2001, whereby the parties have been directed to prefer to argue the matter finally before the Single Judge on 10.12.2001, irrespective of the fact whether the respondent No. 3 had appeared before the Medical Board or not. The reference is made of the order dated 6.12.2001.3. In pursuance of the order dated 6.12.2001, the case has been listed for final disposal. The parties had argued the matter.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Bhushan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC55; 2002(4)WLN531
Naolekar, J.1. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the question involved in the case are that the petitioner has retired on 30.9.1993 as a Judge of the High Court. He was appointed as Lokayukta on 6.7.1994 for a period of five years under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1973. The petitioner, after completing his tenure of five years, retired from the post of Lokayukta on 6.7.1999. Pension papers of the petitioner were submitted by the Secretary, Lokayukta Secretariat, to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel (Gr.A-III), Government of Rajasthan, in the month of April, 1999 i.e. much before the date of retirement. The pension papers submitted by the petitioner claimed pension for the services rendered as Lokayukta for Five years at the rate o'f Rs. 14630/- for every completed year of service aggregating to Rs. 73150/- per annum. The petitioner has also claimed recomputation of the amount of gratuity on the basis of pay with Dea...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Textiles, Jodhpur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1163; AIR2002Raj226; 2002(4)WLC748; 2002(4)WLN41
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 14-11-1990 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. Camp at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby application (suit) filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed.2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that: a suit was filed by the appellant before the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 32,872.35 which was transferred to the Tribunal established under Section 14 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. 1987. The case as set up by the appellant before the Tribunal is that; appellant-firm had booked bales of cloth on 23-7-1986 by parcel train from Jodhpur to Hindatin City vide PWB No. 699790, dt. 23-7-1986. PWB was self. The appellant had sent the PWB to State Bank of India, Hindaun City with the instruction that the bilty be handed over to M/s. Gupta Cloth Store, Hindaun City on payment of Rs. 23.958.27. M/s. Gupta Cloth Store did no...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj190; 2002(5)WLC90; 2002(4)WLN398
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the background that there was an agriculture hold-ing owned by one Jethu Singh s/o Tej Singh in Khasara No. 759 measuring 12, 14 bighas situated at Kheme Ka Kuan. Jethu Singh was holder of Khatedari rights of this land. The said Khatedar sold his rights in favour of respondent No. 3 by a registered sale deed. After sale, the aforesaid land came to be vested in respondent-Samiti. A mutation was entered in the name of Society through Mutation No. 554. In the revenue record, in place of Jethu Singh, respondent No. 3 Samiti was entered as Khatedar. Respondent No. 3 was constituted as Housing Cooperative Society having its Registered No.1188/Q.2. The respondent No. 3 Society made available plot No. 11 measuring 600 sq. yards (60 fts. x 90 fts) to one Khushal Singh, a Member of the Society vide Annexure 1. The land was not converted and was allot-ted as agricultural land only. According to the petltitio...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Vasna Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN553
Chauhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2139/2001 by which the labour court award dated 20.11.2000 has been upheld. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government vide order dated 24.12.1996 made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') as to whether termination of the workman w.e.f. 24.2.1993 was in accordance with law and if not to what relief he was entitled for. In pursuance of the said reference, the labour court made the award dated 20.11.2000 in favour of the workman holding that termination of his services had been in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act particularly compliance of the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »