Rajasthan Court February 2005 Judgments
Udaipur Cement Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj267; RLW2005(2)Raj1170; 2005(3)WLC125
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. These three writ petitions are against the common Order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 3.4.1992 by which the Tribunal rejected three claim petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim in relation to any charge levied and recovered by the Railway under heading of 'siding charges' as according to the Tribunal, the siding charges are not part and parcel of freight and hence, it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its division at Udaipur. The petitioner company booked certain Articles in the form of boxes to be carried by the respondent Railways. The petitioner paid freight at the booking station and for that, the Railway issued receipts to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, at the time of booking, th...
Tag this Judgment!Dutch Opthalmic Research Centre Vs. Ultramed Private Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj213; RLW2005(2)Raj1485; 2005(2)WLC740
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.12.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in civil suit No. 102/04 by which the application filed by the defendant under Order 26 Rule 5 and 15 CPC has been rejected.2. The case of the petitioner is that Dr. Anil Sharma filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and damages alleging therein that the petitioner appointed the plaintiff respondent No. 1 vide authority letter dated 23.4.1994 as its sole distributor for SAARC countries on the basis of an oral contract to sell the ophthalmic equipments. It was also alleged that such contract was for five years starting from 23.4.1994, however, since such imported ophthalmic equipments were defective and also the defendant petitioner terminated the contract, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 claimed for the damages. The suit was in progress and the defendant petitioner has also filed its written statement d...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1590; 2005(2)WLC464
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner submitted an application on 19.6.2003 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.10.2003. The application was accepted by the competent authority vide order dated 1.9.2003 allowing the petitioner to retire w.e.f. 1.10.2003. In the order dated 1.9.2003 it has clearly been mentioned that no inquiry under the CCA Rules is pending against the petitioner. Since retiral benefits were not paid to the petitioner, after giving a legal notice, the present writ petition has been filed for retiral benefits due in favour of the petitioner.2. In reply a strange plea has been taken on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner could not be paid retiral benefits because of pendency of departmental inquires against him. It has also been submitted that formal order of dropping the departmental inquiry, initiated under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, has been passed on 10.2.2005.3. The order dated 1.9.2003 has been passed under Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules read wi...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2175; 2005WLC(Raj)UC488
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the challan papers and various order-sheets of the Trial Court.2. The first bail application came to be rejected by this Court on 18.8.2004. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file fresh bail application after the statement of prosecutrix is recorded. The Trial Court was directed to record the statement of the prosecutrix as a first witness. Since August, 2004, on several occasions, the Trial Court issued the summons to the prosecutrix from her appearance. The whereabouts of the prosecutrix is not known as per the report on the various summons issued to her.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Doctor Ved Prakash, who examined the prosecutrix, has been examined by the Trial Court as PW 1. According to the medical evidence, the age of the prosecutrix is 18-20 years. The Doctor further opined the the prosecutrix is habitual to sexual intercourse....
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sita Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC294
J.R. Goyal, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988/ by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the award dated 9.2.1994 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar in the Claim Petition No. 157/1991.2. The claimant-respondents filed claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar with the averments that on 20.9.1991 when Ganpat Singh (deceased), aged 38 years, was going on a bicycle on Sendra Road, a bus of appellant Corporation bearing No. RNP 1623 hit him, as a result whereof he received severe injuries and died on the spot.3. Non-applicant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation contested the claim petition.4. After trial, the Tribunal passed an award for a total sum of Rs. 1,73,600/- making the non-applicant Corporation liable to pay compensation.6. The Corporation preferred this appeal and cross-objections were also filed by the respondents.7. Heard learned Co...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj584
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Shorn of all technicalities and embellishment, the substantive case of the petitioner is that he was employed in the Municipality as daily rated workman in the year 1991-92. He was paid salary upto August, 1993 and thereafter when he demanded for salary in the regular pay-scale of Peon plus Dearness Allowance, his services were unceremoniously terminated on 2.12.93 without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act that is to say neither one month notice was given before termination nor one month salary as remuneration in lieu of notice was paid to him at the time of retrenchment nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of retrenchment. It was also alleged that the respondents were not obliged to pay their employees minimum pay as per the Minimum Wages Act.3. The respondents admitted the case of retrenchment, however, it was stated that the retrenchment took place w.e.f. 01...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Santosh Yadav
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1830; RLW2005(1)Raj538; 2005(2)WLC1
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Following question has been referred to us for adjudication:-'Whether production warrant requiring attendance of a prisoner lodged in judicial custody in one case can be issued under Section 267 CrPC for the purpose of investigation in another case and whether the expression 'other proceeding' and 'for the purpose of any proceedings' used in Section 267 and 267(1)(a) respectively would include 'investigation' as defined in Section 2(h) CrPC 2. The facts giving rise to this question may briefly be stated. One Yogesh Vijay submitted a written report on October 9, 2000 at the police Station Shipra Path Jaipur with the averments that 4-5 persons forcibly entered his house around 8 P.M., tied his hands and legs and made him to sit in a room. The miscreants had a 'Katta' (country made gun) and knives. They demanded ornaments and cash and threatened him for dire consequences if their demand was not fulfilled. They collected all the valuables and fled away. After they h...
Tag this Judgment!Kulvindar Kaur (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj546
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 29.9.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in criminal misc. case No. 78/2004, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 CrPC seeking interim custody of truck No. PB-08F-4805, which was seized by the police while it was transporting the poppy straw. The offence against Avtar Singh and Gurdev Singh, who were in possession of the poppy straw was registered under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. During the pendency of the criminal case against Avtar Singh & Gurdev Singh, an application was filed by the present petitioner seeking interim Custody of the truck on the ground that the truck is registered in the name of her husband Jaga Singh, who is said to have expired on 11.10.2001. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence showing her title or right to possess the truck in question. ...
Tag this Judgment!Keshu Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1420
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The facts of this case are identical to the facts involved in Kailash Chandra v. State of Raj. and Ors., S.B. C.W.P. No. 5663 of 1993 = RLW 2005(1) Raj. 584. In addition thereto, another fact which has come on record and which has not been disputed is that after the termination on purported ground that work for which the petitioner have been appointed has come to end, another person namely one Prakash Chandra has been appointed as Driver to discharge the duty which the petitioners were discharging under the Municipal Board, Rajsamand until first week of December, 1993.2. The other facts which emanate clearly from the record are that the petitioners were appointed as Driver on daily wages and continued as such for more than one year when their services were terminated verbally w.e.f. 02.12.1993. The petitioners performed their duties until first December, 1993, however, salary was paid to them only upto August, 1993. The immediate cause of termination was stated to be...
Tag this Judgment!inder Kumar Vs. Hari Prakash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1457; 2005(2)WLC525
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 5.2.2005 by which the first appellate court dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. However, by the same order, even after rejecting the petitioner's application, the first appellate court held that the plea taken by the petitioner- defendant-appellant in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC will be considered by the appellate court at the time of hearing of the appeal and, therefore, there is no need to allow amendment of the written statement.3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the first appellate court has committed serious error of law in observing that the amendment sought is not necessary and also not relevant. The first appellate court also committed serious error in holding that the application for amendment of the written statement has been filed after delay, therefore, the application can be rejected on thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »