Rajasthan Court August 2004 Judgments
Sanatan Dharm Shastri Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya Lalsot (Shri) Vs. State ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj128; 2004(4)WLC326
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition impugning the judgment dated October 27, 2001 of Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'Tribunal') whereby the application filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 21 of Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short '1989 Act') was allowed and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent No. 4 with continuity of service on the post of Ayurved Teacher and allow him pay scale of the said post. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of Tribunal suffers from manifest errors of law apparent on face of record as the Tribunal failed to appreciate the preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the application under Section 21 of 1989 Act. Since respondent No. 4 had abandoned the job and his initial appointment on August 1, 1987 was void and ab initio, he was not entitled to any relief. Reliance is placed...
Tag this Judgment!Sudershan Mehta (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj109; 2004(4)WLC511
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner determining the same on the last pay drawn along with the interest on due amount from July 31, 1999 till payment of the amount of pension.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was in regular employment of Government of Rajasthan in school education. She was holding the post of Vice Principal from January 1, 1996 and drawing the salary in pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500. Her last place of posting was at Rajkiya Maharani Balika Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bikaner. The petitioner stood retired on July 31, 1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. The post of Vice Principal, Lecturers Teachers Training College and Senior Deputy Inspector Schools were place at the equal status. After several requests only 75% gratuity Rs. 1,52,856/- has been released on November 22, 1999 and 25% sum Rs. 50,962/- is due. The commutation amount Rs. 1,95,686/- is yet...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj300; 2004(4)WLC640
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant from jail vide letter dated 30.7.2001 aggrieved from judgment and order dated 9.7.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 90/2001 by which he while acquitting for the offence under Section 324 IPC, convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of2. Since this appeal was preferred by the accused appellant from jail and he was not represented by any counsel, therefore, this Court vide order dated 10.9.2001 appointed Shri Anshuman Mishra as Amicus Curiae to argue the case on behalf of the accused appellant. However, thereafter, since Shri P.S. Bhati and Dhirendra Singh Bhati filed their power to represent the accused appellant, therefore, this Court vide order dated 6.3.2002 ordered that the order of appointing amicus curiae dated 10.9.2001 may not...
Tag this Judgment!Neeraj and Associates and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC499; RLW2005(1)Raj674; 2004(4)WLC776
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Since these three writ petitions have been filed against the decision taken by the respondents for inviting fresh tender for installation and establishment of 16 Slice Spiral CT Scan and MRI machine and rendering various diagnostic services to the patients, therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order. The fact of the case of M/s. Neeraj & Associates (SBCWP No. 4246/2004) are being taken as a leading case.2. An advertisement was issued on 12.3.2004 by the respondents in daily newspaper Danik Bhaskar for inviting the tenders to install CT Scan and MRI machine in SMS Hospital, Jaipur.3. All the petitioners submitted their technical and financial bids. The technical bids were opened on 21.4.2004 by the committee constituted for this purpose by the Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society. After opening of the technical bids, financial bids were opened on 18.5.2004. To this effect, a press note was issued by the respondents on 22.6.2004 in daily newspa...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kr. Gupta Vs. High Court of Judicature for Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj759; 2005(3)SLJ338(Raj); 2004(4)WLC281
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. Since the identical questions of fact and law have been raised in these writ petitions, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners, who have filed these writ petitions by way of public interest litigation claim themselves to be persons with disabilities. They appeared in the RJ.S. Recruitment Test 2003 held pursuant to the advertisement dated 4.8.2003 for filling up 89 vacancies calculated for the present year and 19 carried forward vacancies but, no reservation for handicapped persons was provided. They seek declaration that the provisions of Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short, 'the Act of 1995') are applicable to the R.J.S. Rules 1955 and they are entitled to 3% reservation for persons with disabilities under the said Act and the Rules framed by the State Government thereunder. It is also prayed that directions be given to the RPSC ...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Lal and ors. Vs. Gurjeet Kaur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2739; 2004(4)WLC622
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs against the order dtd. 5.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No. 12/1998 by which the application filed by the plaintiff - petitioner for re- opening the evidence was rejected and affirmed the order dtd. 15.10.99 by which evidence of the petitioners - plaintiffs was closed.2. It may be stated that in this case, the plaintiffs - petitioners filed a suit for specific performance and in that suit, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents - defendants on 17.4.1994 and issues were framed on 29.7.1995 and thereafter the case was lingering on for recording the evidence of the plaintiffs - petitioners and due to some reasons, the evidence was not produced by the plaintiffs - petitioners and the learned Trial Court through order dtd. 15.10.99 closed the evi- dence of the plaintiffs - petitioners. Therea...
Tag this Judgment!Genus Overseas Electronics Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC340; RLW2005(1)Raj753
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner company is a private company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Government of Rajasthan as also the Bureau of Industrial Promotion took a decision to give incentives to such industries who are interested in setting up a new industrial unit in Rajasthan and they were assured that a number of fiscal incentives would be made available for new industries such as capital investment subsidy, sales tax exemption/deferment, octroi exemption, subsidy on D.G. Set and testing equipment, etc.2. The petitioner company set up an electronic unit for manufacturing Hybrid Micro Circuits and SMT Board Assembly. The memorandum of understanding was also signed for manufacturing the aforesaid articles with RIICO on 12.3.1993. In MOU also, the petitioner company was assured to provide a facility upto the extent of Rs. 45 lacs which included the state subsidy as provided under the State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for New Industries, 1990.3...
Tag this Judgment!Geepee Ceval Protiens and Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs. Bunge Agribusiness ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]62SCL523(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner transferee company and perused the entire record of the petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on the record copy of the order dated 12th August, 2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary original civil jurisdiction) in Company Petition No. 394 of 2004 connected with Company Application No. 66 of 2004. The order has been passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on the application of M/s. Bung Agribusiness India Private Limited, the Transferor Company. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor company with M/s. Geepee Ceval Protiens & Investment Private Limited, the petitioner herein.3. In pursuance of the notice of the petition issued to the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Northern Region, Kanpur, he has filed affidavit making averments in para No. 4 thereof that the Central Government has no objection to...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Udyog Ltd. and anr. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj131; 2004(4)WLC448
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The application seeking impleadment stand disposed of with the direction that Dhanraj Kumar Jain and M/S. Haryana State Minor Irrigation and T/Wells Corporation Ltd. are permitted to make submissions as interveners. 2. Having analysed the rival submissions I find that controversy involved in this writ petition which has been preferred against the interim order dated August 3, 2001 passed in Appeal No. 22/2001 by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short 'AAIFR'), attracts the maxim 'qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita altera acquum licet dixerit haud acquum fecerit' (He who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right. 3. It is borne out form the record that the impugned order dated August 3, 2001 was stayed by this court on September 4, 2001 and when appeal No. 22/2001 was posted for hearing before the AAIFR, the counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Harphool Singh (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: [2008(104)FLR1]; RLW2005(1)Raj162; 2004(4)WLC534
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner, a Lance Nayak in Border Security Force (BSF) was boarded out of service on the ground of physical unfitness on February 15, 1975. Initially financial assistance in the sum of Rs. 50/- per month was provided to him but that too was stopped after February, 1985. In the instant writ petition the petitioner claimed pension. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner expired on April 1, 2003 and his legal representatives sought permission to continue the petition. 2. The respondents in the return pleaded that since the petitioner had served only for a period of seven years nine months and eighteen days an did not complete ten years of service, he was not entitled to pension. It was also averred that financial assistance of Rs. 50/- per month for ten years was paid to the petitioner out of BSF Benevolent Funds. The respondents admitted the fact that the petitioner had fallen sick during the course of service, but the record of Medical Board was not mad...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »