Rajasthan Court August 2001 Judgments
Kalu Ram and ors. Vs. Indraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj39; 2002(1)WLC640; 2002(4)WLN410
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perlised the impugned order by which the trial court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of the applicants and impleaded the applicants as defendant in the suit.2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the applications failed to even submit that they are effected parties and there is no reason for impleading these applicants as defendant in the suit of the plaintiff. Since plaintiff is dominus litus and, therefore, he cannot be compelled to contest the suit against the defendant who are now impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner-plaintiff has not sought any relief against the applicants-non-petitioners and no right of the applicants will be effected by the decision of the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought relief against only the State with respect to his own irrigation facilities. Therefore, neither the applicants are necessar...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agri. and Tech.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN41
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. By this appeal the counsel for the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that deceased employee was a temporary employee serving under the University under a scheme of 1990 which had no provision for offering any compassionate appointment to the legal representatives of the deceased employee2. Learned counsel for the appellant urges before us that since the deceased employee was a temporary employee and there was some provision that he could be regularised, therefore, he should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition as he wants to file fresh writ petition for seeking regularisation. The prayer is too remote to be considered at this stage, when the learned Single Judge has also considered the entitlement of petitioner for compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is not a common law right. It is a creation of statute. Under the statute there is no provisio...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Engineer (O and M) R.S.E.B. and anr. Vs. Suwa Puri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2001
Reported in: I(2003)ACC257; 2002(4)WLC739
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.1.1992 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bikaner Region, Bikaner (for short 'the Commissioner') in Case No. WCC/9/91 whereby the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,26,328/- in favour of the respondent and, against the appellants. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the appellants, who are employer of the respondent workman, have filed this appeal.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. Perused the judgment impugned and the record.3. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Commissioner fell in error in determining the disablement to the extent of 90%. He contended that the total disablement resulted due to the said accident would remain only to the extent of 45%. He further contended that the Commissioner fell in error in imposing the penalty for a sum of Rs. 21,615.50. He contended that the appellant had already deposited Rs. 43,231.50 on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Jhamaku Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR171]; 2001(3)WLC784; 2003(2)WLN361
Keshote, J.1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for direction, directing the respondents to allow Family Pension Benefits to the petitioner from 1.3.1964 or from any other date which this Court thinks just and proper.2. The facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner, late Shri Lal Chand Bohra, was a permanent Government servant as Patwari, Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan. He had served for about 10 years. He died while in service before 1.3.1964. At that time, there was no provision to provide family pension to the dependents of deceased employee. However, the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 were came to be amended and Rules 268-A and 268-8 have been inserted in these Rules. By virtue of this amendment in the Rules of 1951, the family pension was given to the dependents of the employees/officers who retired or died on or after 1.3.1964. The petitioner's husband was expired prior to 1.3.1964 and ther...
Tag this Judgment!Friends Coal Carbonisation Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj116; 2002(4)WLC707; 2002(2)WLN96
ORDER Whereas M/s. Friends Coal Carbonisation, Dhanbad (Bihar) were awarded the Work Order for supply of 19,000/- MT Metallurgical Coke for Vizag Zinc Smelter and Tundoo Lead Smelter vide Purchase Order No.Com/CC/4(9) dated 16.12.91. Whereas dispute has arisen between the parties in respect of interpretation of the price escalation clause and the difference in payment arising out of it. Whereas M/s. Friends Coal Corporation, Dhanbad (Bihar) has appointed Shri B.D. Sharma, Ex-Group General Manager, Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 23, Fatehpura, Near Seva Mandir, Udaipur, as their Arbitrator under Clause 13,01 of the above referred Purchase Order. The Chairman-Managing Director in terms of the powers vested in him under the Arbitration Clause 13 Sub-clause 13.01 of the above referred purchase order has been pleased to appoint Shri T.S. Vardya, Director General (Retd.), Indian Railways, 8-B, Kumbha Marg, Near Sukhadia Circle, Udaipur as HZL's Arbitrator in the matter of disputes between the parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Hulasi Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: II(2003)ACC103; 2002ACJ2082; 2002(4)WLN88
Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15th Feb., 1994 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 1,05,000/-in favour of the respondent-claimants No. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against the appellant and respondent No. 5.2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that on 2.8.1989 respondent No. 5 Prahlad Ram and deceased Om Prakash were proceeding from Siwana to Balotra on a Motor Cycle No. RNQ-4683 which was owned and driven by the respondent No. 5 and was under a valid insurance with the appellant on the relevant date. It was averred that the respondent No. 5 was driving the motor cycle at a great speed, rashly and negligently, The said motor cycle suddenly went off the road to its wrong side and collided with a tree at road side. Om Prakash who was a pillion rider of the said motor cycle sus...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Ladu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ426
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 30-1-87 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Cr. Case No. 65/86 by which he acquitted the accused-respondents for violation of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances :i) On 14-12-85, P.W.I Dr. P. K. Purohit, Food Inspector checked the accused-respondent near the Railway Station and found that he was selling milk but he was not having valid licence for that and this search was made by P.W. 1 Dr. P. K. Purohit in presence of P.W. 2 Sher Khan.ii) He prepared Fard of search Ex. P/1 and after obtaining sanction etc. presented a complaint in the lower Court.3-4. On 23-4-86, the trial Magistrate read over the contents of offence to the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.5. During trial...
Tag this Judgment!Hissaria Brothers Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(NULL)1
ORDERBy the BenchAs the above appeals involve common points, so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA Nos. 434/Jdpr/2000, 429/Jdpr/2000 and 432/Jdpr/2000 are appeals by the assessee for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 in respect of penalties under section 271D sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, while ITA Nos. 499/Ju/2000, 504/Ju/2000 and 502/Ju/2000 are appeals by the revenue for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, respectively, in respect of penalties under section 271D cancelled by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, vide his appellate common order, dated 18-8-2000. Similarly, ITA Nos. 433/Jdpr/2000, 430/Jdpr/2000 and 431/Jd/2000 are appeals by the assessee for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 in respect of penalties under section 271E sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), while ITA Nos. 500/Ju/2000, 503/Ju/2000 and 501/Ju/2000 are appeals by the revenue for ass...
Tag this Judgment!Chhinderpal Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN308
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 2.3.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Case No. 10/88 where by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused appellants for offence Under Sections 328 and 377 I.P.C. and another accused Anop Singh for offence Under Sections 328, 377/34 and 377/109 I.P.C. convicted the accused appellants for offence Under Section 379 I.P.C. and sentenced them as under:NAME OF CONVICTED SENTENCE AWARDEDACCUSED UNDER SECTIONChhinderpal Singh 379 IPC 1 Year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.lOO/- in default to Further undergo 1 month's R.I.Baldev Singh 379 IPC 1 Year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.lOO/- in default to further undergo 1 month's R.I.2. By the same judgment, another accused Anop Singh was also convicted and sentenced for offence Under Section 379 I.P.C, but he has not preferred any appeal before this Court.3. It arises in ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Palika, Lalsot Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC784
Keshote, J.1. The matter is placed on the application filed under Article226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of the interim relief granted in favour of thepetitioner. 2. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.4. The challenge has been made by the petitioner to the award dated 12.10.1998 passed by Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur in LCR No. 370/1998. The reference aforesaid has been decided by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent-workman. The termination of his services by the petitioner was held to be unfair and illegal. The directions were given to the petitioner to take the workman- respondent back in the service with continuity in the service. The respondent-workman was awarded 50% back wages. The Labour Court has found this retrenchment/termination of the services of the workman made by the petitioner in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »