Rajasthan Court March 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Trimurti Construction Ajmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC617
Sharma, J. 1. Matter was finally heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellants seek to quash the order dated August 4, 2000 of the learned Additional District Judge Ajmer whereby application of the respondent moved under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 1996 Act) was allowed and the appellants were restrained from proceeding further in pursuance to letter dated March 2, 2000 and from withholding the amount which is more than the amount payable under contract or Rs. 13,81,706.20 whichever is less and from making adjustment of amount payable to the respondents under other contracts.3. Contextual facts depict that the contractor respondent disputing the liability of Rs. 13,81,706.20 referred in the appellants letter dt. 2.3.2000, moved an application Under Section 9 of 1996 Act seeking interim injunction pending arbitral award. Appellants contested the application by filing reply. Learned court below after hearing the par...
Dalu Ram and Another Vs. Lukman and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1076; 2002(2)WLC48; 2001(2)WLN409
ORDERPanwar, J.(1). This appeal is directed against the Award dated 25.1.1994 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra thereinafter called 'Tribunal') in Civil Misc. Case No. 69 of 1989, for enhancement of the Award.(2). Briefly stated the facts which are considered necessary and relevant for the decision of [his appeal, are that on 3.2.89 at about 5 PM appellant Khemaram who on the relevant date was 7 years' of age and was student of 2nd Standard of Sharda Bal Niketan School, Balotra, was going to his house after the school hours on Balotra-Samdari road on its correct side of the road. At that relevant time, a Truck bearing No. RNJ 7169 came from behind and hit him resulting thereby that he sustained various injuries on his person, he fell down on the spot and became unconscious. It was the case of the appellant-claimants that the Truck in question was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 Lukman, who was under the employment of respondent No.2, the owne...
Major M.V. Thapliyal and Others Vs. Smt. Shyam Bala and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1061; 2001(2)WLN221
ORDERPanwar, J.(1). This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 15th Feb. 1993, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, On short 'The Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claims case No. 194/1990 whereby the Tribunal passed an Award of Rs. 70,000/- including interest in favour of the appellant-claimants.(2). Briefly stated the facts, out of which, this Appeal has arisen, are that a Claim Petition was filed by the appellant- claimants against the respondents, claiming compensation under various heads for a sum of Rs. 15,22,000/-. The case of the appellant claimants, is that on 4.9.1990 at about 1 P.M. while deceased Seema along with her younger sister Kum. Asha were proceeding on Luna Moped No. RNQ 1988, they were on the Ratanada Bazar Road, Jodhpur, at the relevant time, a truck bearing No. UHM 2081 came from behind being driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No.1, Virendra Singh, hit the Luna and its riders, resulting thereby that by th...
Dayanand and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj257; 2001(2)WLC591; 2001(4)WLN58
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. It is a revision petition challenging the order of the Additional DistrictJudge, Ramganj Mandi (Kota) who returned the claim of the petitioners (plaintiffs) holding that the suit was not of urgent nature inasmuch as notice Under Section 80, CPC and 271 of the Municipalities Act ought to have been served upon the respondents-State and the Municipality prior to institution of the suit, but failed to do so. 2. Shri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per S, 271 of the Municipalities Act no prior notice is required to institute a suit for permanent injunction except for declaration, inasmuch as in a suit for twin reliefs, i,e, seeking permanent injunction and declaration against the State and the Municipality, which are independent of each other, each of them could be claimed separately and independently in one suit, either by denying or accepting one of them and in these circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have returned the s...
J.D.A. Vs. Judge, Labour Court No. 1 and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ787Raj
ORDER1. The services of respondent No. 2 have been terminated vide order dated December 31, 1982. The order was challenged before the Labour Court in a reference and the Labour Court was pleased to set aside the order of termination having been passed without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said order was also challenged by filing a writ petition before the learned single Judge. After appreciation of material placed before him, he has reached to the conclusion that inspite of the opportunity given to the appellant-employer, no evidence has been led by the employer to show that the workman has not workedformorethan240daysinthepreceding year. The Court has also reached to the conclusion that the decision rendered by the Labour Court is in accordance with law and there is no error or illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›