Rajasthan Court August 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.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Gokal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC735; 2002(4)WLN197
Tatia, J.1. With the consent of the parties, 'these appeals have been heard finally.2. There is a short dispute between the parties whether the agriculturists, whose land was acquired, are entitled for solatium as per Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1894) and additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on market value of the land from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) till the date of award or date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier under sub- section (1)(A) of Section 23 of the Act of 1894.3. The facts relating to the matter are that Notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (which was applicable to the Rajaslhan) were published on 8.6.1983 and 3.8.1983. Notices were also issued under Section 9 of the above Act directing the agriculturists-non-petitioners to submit their claim. The land was sought to be acquired for the...
Union Bank Employees Association Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR48]; 2002(4)WLC441
Keshote, J.1. Challenge has been made to the award dated 20. 4. 2001 of the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in case No. C. I. T. 86/89 by the petitioners in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The industrial dispute raised by the petitioner regarding the termination of the services was referred to the Tribunal by the Central Government. The dispute referred to the Tribunal was in the following terms:-'Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri R. B. Soni and not considering him for further employment while recruiting fresh hands under Section 25-H of the I. D. Act is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?'2. The Industrial Tribunal has framed as many as 7 points for consideration which reads as under:-'(a) Whether R. B. Soni is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Act?(b) Whether the applicant union had no authority or locus standi to sponsor or expouse the cause of workman R. B...
Suraj Mal and ors. Vs. Khumani Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN264
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present suit was filed on 22.10.80 by plaintiffs Bhawar Lal, Satya Narain, Jatan Lal and Dwarka Das. Plaintiff Bhanwar Lal died on 5.12.81, plaintiff No. 2 Satya Narain died on 25.12.91, plaintiff Jatan Lal died on 26.7.88 and plaintiff Dwarka Das died on 10.12.87. The present controversy is with respect to the taking on record the persons who are claiming that right to prosecute the suit devolves upon them. Earlier on an application filed on 5.3.82, it is mentioned that plaintiff Bhanwar Lal expired on 5.12.81 and one Satya Narain S/o Basu Dev adopted son of Naraindas was appointed as Trustee President and, therefore, name of deceased Bhanwar Lal be struck-off and name of Satya Narain be permitted to be arrayed as plaintiff No. 1. This application was pending for long time and thereafter the application was submitted by defendants on 8.1.93 stating that plaintiff No. 1, 3 and 4 Bhanwar Lal, Jatan Lal and Dwarka Das died several ye...
Babu Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1034
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 19-11-1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. (118/92) (24/94) 88/97 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. one lac. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months. By the same judgment, the learned Special Judge acquitted two other accused Pramod Kumar and Maskoor.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :--P.W. 1 Pramod Kumar Sinha, Inspector, in the Office of District Opium Officer, Bhilwara lodged a complaint Ex. P/21 in the Court of Session, Bhilwara stating inter alia that on the directions of the District Opium Officer, Bhilwara, a Raiding Party und...
Smt. Prabha Sharma Vs. Judge Family Court (No. 1) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC702
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. An ex-parte decree for divorce was granted in favour of the respondent husband on November 7, 1990 by the Family Court No. 5, Bandra, Mumbai. The appellant wife instituted a suit for setting aside the said decree under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur with the averments that the respondent husband obtained the said decree by reason of fraud and deception practised on her. Learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur vide its order dated October 22, 1999 returned the suit to the appellant wife for its presentation in the competent Court on the ground that no cause of action arose to the appellant wife within the jurisdiction at Jaipur. Against this order of the learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur that the action for filing the instant miscellaneous appeal has been resorted to by the appellant wife.2. As per the averments made in the plaint by the appellant, she was married to the respondent on July 4, 1979 at Jaipur. After marria...
Sukhdarshan Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1620; 2002(5)WLC487; 2002(2)WLN333
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 23.8.1999 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 174/97, by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 304B and 498 IPC and sentenced them in the following manner;-Name of accused appellantsConvictedu/Sec.Sentenceawarded to each accused appellant1. Sukhdarshan304B IPCSevenyears R! and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo six months Rt.2. Kishorilal3. Smt. Sita 498AIPCOneyear RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo one month RI.Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short, are as follows:-On 8.3.1996 at about 7.45 PM, PW 1 Vijay Kumar lodged a written report Ex.P/1 before PW 17 Rajendra Singh, who was SHO, Police Station Kesrisinghpur at t...
Anand Bharti and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR533]; 2002(1)WLC203; 2003(2)WLN243
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.2. The petitioners-appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased employee of the State who in the first instance had joined the service of respondents as Vaidhya w.e.f 24.7.1964. From 5th July, 1977 he remained absent from duty without leave and thereafter, he tried to join alongwith an application for leave on 2nd August, 1984. His leave application was rejected. Thereafter he was allowed to join on 7.5.89 when he reappeared with the leave application. That application was decided on 29.5.90. The order communicated him that it is not possible to sanction leave of such an inordinate long period and therefore he is being offered fresh appointment.3. The incumbent died on 4.8.90. His legal representatives laid claim to emoluments for the period between July 1977 to 7.5.89 and the pension as the employee haddied while in service. While considering the claim of the petitioners, the pay and services for the period prior to 7.5....
Smt. Kamla Sharma Vs. Suresh Kumar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC680
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant appeal impugns the decree and judgment dated February 28, 1994 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 1955 Act) was allowed and the decree of divorce was passed in favour of the respondent husband.2. The appellant wife and the respondent husband shall be referred hereinafter as the 'wife' and the 'husband'.3. Contextual facts depict that the husband instituted a petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion in the Family Court, Ajmer. It was averred in the petition that after the marriage which had taken place on May 9,1983, the wife lived with the husband only for four and half months and during that period also she visited her father's house at Ratlam (M.P.) twice. When she again expressed her wish to visit her father's place the husband made an attempt to prevent her but after assuring the husband that she would come back in two weeks she left Ajmer f...
Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Chun ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1066; 2001WLC(Raj)UC761
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties on appeal filed by appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.6.1991, the bus of the appellant RNP 3139 was going from Phalodi to Bikaner and at 6.30 to 7 a.m., before Bikaner near Gajner, it met with an accident with truck No. RRN 2289 by which truck driver Bacchu Khan and three other persons Khuda Bux, Bhanwar Singh and Laxman Singh died. The passengers travelling in the bus, i.e., Sohanlal, Salmat Banu, Rakesh Bhargawa, Mani Ram, Nand Kumar, Chuna Ram, Chhaganlal and Mahadeo Singh suffered injuries. Claim cases were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner impleading the appellant and the owner of the truck and the insurance company who insured the truck in the claim petitions. In all these claim cases, learned Tribunal decided the claim by common award dated 27.10.1995 holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of the bus as we...
Bhura Vs. B.O.R. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN713
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the orders passed by Up-Tehsildar dated 15.6.1996, Addl. Collector, Rajsamad dated 31.7.1996, Revenue Appellate Authority dated 28.1.1998 and the Board of Revenue dated 24.4.1988 by the petitioner has been held to be a habitual trespasser and he has been ordered to be evicted from the land which is a part of Gochar land and on which he has committed trespass even after his earlier eviction.3. The petitioner has pleaded for regularisation on the basis of his long possession and has relied on Circular Issued by the Govt. dated 2nd Feb., 1983 to regularize the long possession even in case of Gochar land provided a person is in possession since before 1970. In the proceedings Under Section 91, the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunity offer to him for producing any evidence in support of his long possession but he neither availed this opportunity on the date fixed nor was he present on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »