Rajasthan Court January 2005 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.
Ram Niwas Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2295; 2005(4)WLC134
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner married with one Sharda Devi on 16th May, 1987 as per Hindu Rites. Out of the wedlock, a daughter Seemaborn to the petitioner. The petitioner's wife Sharda Devi died on 11th May, 1993. The petitioner, thereafter, married to one Indra on 13th May, 1994. Out of this wedlock, two sons born to the petitioner. Smt. Indra died on 16th Oct. 1997. Therefore, by two marriage, the petitioner got three children. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the death of second wife of the petitioner, the petitioner contracted third marriage but there is no child from that wedlock.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner as per Sub- clause (1) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1994), a person, who has more than two children and with a birth of any child after 27th Nov., 1995 is a disqua...
Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Raj. Vs. the S ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR338]; RLW2005(2)Raj771; 2005(2)WLC379
R.P. Vyas, J.1. Petitioner-the Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur-hay filed the instant petition, praying, inter alia, therein for quashing the award dated March 20, 2001 (Annex. A/5) and Notification dated February 8,1999 (Annex. A/2) and directing the respondents to initiate proper proceedings against his actual employer.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department has never been the Employer of Respondent No. 3-Shri Ratna Ram Patel (claimant). The respondent No. 3, (claimant) being employee of one employer-Mining Engineer (Writs) submitted his writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which was titled as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4735/91 (Ratna Ram Patel v. Minine Engineer (Writs) and Ors.). In the said writ petition, the employee-Ratna Ram (claimant) submitted that despite having completed 240 days under the Mining Engineer (Writs), his services have been retrenched w...
Hema Construction Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj241; RLW2005(3)Raj1532; 2005(2)WLC222
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5649/2004 whereby the learned Judge found the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant in a contractual matter involving disputed questions of fact and therefore declined writ jurisdiction.3. The appellant-petitioner, registered 'AA' Class Contractor was awarded the work of 'Construction and Upgradation of Missing Link from Bhiluda to Saroda Road KM 3/500 to 8/500 and 10/500 to 15/500' amounting to Rs. 88,95,991.00 at the negotiated rates of 9% above G-Schedule Rates. Acceptance of the tender was conveyed on behalf of the Governor of the State of Rajasthan to the petitioner by the work order dated 5.2.2004 (Annex.P/3) stating inter alia the stipulated date of commencement of work as 15.2.2004 and the stipulated date of completion as 14.9.2004 and that the contract clauses 'Conditions of Contract' R.P...
Regional Manager, Riico Ltd. Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR454]; RLW2005(3)Raj2024; 2005(2)WLC123
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying, inter alia, therein that the award dated June 6, 2003 (Annex.P/1), passed by the Labour Court may be quashed and set aside and the claim petition of Respondent No. 2-Neena Agarwal (applicant) may be rejected.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition as alleged by the Petitioner-Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., are that (the applicant-respondent No. 2 was appointed on a fixed pay in the year, 1996, in the Office of RIICO, Abu Road, through M/s. Private Security Services, Abu Road, on contract basis, where, she was given the work of Stenographer/Junior Assistant. The applicant worked till December 31, 1998. On 31st December, 1998, her services were terminated by a verbal order.3. During the course of conciliation, the Petitioner-RIICO admitted that she was given work on contract basis through M/s. Private Security Services, Abu Road and that contract came to an end in the month of July, 1998. The applicant...
Pukh Raj Vs. Magh Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj135; 2005(2)ARBLR602(Raj); RLW2005(3)Raj1514; 2005(2)WLC237
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has made, the award of the Arbitrator, the Rule of the Court.2. Assailing the impugned order, the only submission made is, that the arbitrator Shri Satya Narain Khanna was not qualified, rather disqualified, to be the arbitrator, and therefore, the award made by him is wholly without jurisdiction, and should have been set aside by the learned trial Court. The disqualification, or disability, contended is, that in the arbitration agreement, he is one of the witnesses, and since according to the learned counsel, he is a witness to the agreement, he could not be the arbitrator, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand, reported in AIR 1957 SC 425 and Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, reported in (1963) 7 Fac LR 269. Learned counsel also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4274/2004 D.K. Parihar v. Union of I...
Prakash Chandra Vs. Smt. Basanti and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj278
Govind Mathur, J.1. This civil regular first appeal is preferred by plaintiff assailing validity and propriety of judgment and decree dated 11-12-1995 whereby learned District Judge, Dungarpur rejected the suit for recovery of money.2. The facts necessary for adjudication of appeal, as mentioned in the plaint, are that appellant plaintiff purchased a truck with partnership of Shri Gamera (defendant). For the purpose of purchase of truck plaintiff as well as defendant both were required to include equal share of purchasing amount. Defendant Gamera was not having money at the relevant time, therefore, the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs.61,501/- as a part money required to be paid by Gamera to Rehman Bhai from whom the truck was said to be purchased. It is further stated in the plaint that Shri Gamera (defendant) executed the bond on 5-11-1982 in favour of the appellant stating therein that the amount of Rs. 61,501 / - was paid to Rehman Bhai by plaintiff Prakash Chandra on behalf of defend...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sushila and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC504
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur against the award dated 8-4-1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, Distt. Jaipur in Claim Case No. 220/1992. Whereby a claim petition filed by the claimant respondents was allowed to the extent of Rs. three lacs (Rs. 3,00,000/-) only as a compensation on account of the death of one Kesari Mal Sharma, who died as a result of the multiple injuries suffered by him in a motor accident involving two truck No. DEL 381 owned by the respondent No. 6.2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is on the excessive side and comes as a windfall. To oppose the above submission, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the quantum of compensation cannot be challenged by the Insurance Company as there was no application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the appellant. ...
ikramul Huq Vs. Gordhanlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC510
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 24.4.1992 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in M.A.C.T. Case No. 1163/1989 filed by the claimant-appellant for compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which took place on 19.6.1989 in which the appellant sustained multiple injuries including fracture on his head and dis-figuration.2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 3 pertaining to the quantum of compensation, has awarded Rs. 24,550/- based upon the actual expenditure and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of pain and suffering as well as for disfiguration. However, the learned Tribunal did not award any compensation on account of loss of income occasioned because of permanent partial disability due to the injuries suffered by the appellant. The another submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is mat in view of the af...
SahbuddIn @ Sabu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj526; 2005(2)WLC30
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, eight in number, were the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Alwar bearing Sessions Case No. 27/1997. Learned Judge vide judgment dated October 22, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-Amru Khan:Under Section 147 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.Under Section 148 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.Under Section 302 IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-. in default to further suffer rigorous Imprisonment for fifteen days.Under Section 302/149 IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer rigorous Imprisonment for fifteen days.Under Section 307/149 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer rigorous Imprisonment for fifteen days.Under Section 3/25 Arms Act: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further s...
Aksh Optifibre Ltd. Vs. ShIn Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR366(Raj); RLW2005(2)Raj1000; 2005(2)WLC66
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 29.9.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Tizara, Alwar on the ground that while allowing the application of the respondent No. 1 filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Trial Court has committed serious irregularity as Section 8 is only applicable in case of domestic arbitration and or in the International Commercial Arbitration but not in the case of the Arbitration between the parties belonging to the Convention countries, therefore, the provisions of Section 8 has no application where the parties to the agreement belongs to the countries which are contracting States under the New York Convention.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 45 begins with a non-obstante clause and expressly overrides the provisions of Section 8 contained in the first part of the said Act, as such, the Civil Judge ought to have dismissed the application of the respondent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »