Rajasthan Court February 2005 Judgments
K.M.S. Distributors Vs. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas896(Raj); [2006]68SCL277(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record of the petition.2. The petitioner by this petition under Section 433 read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956'), is praying for grant of the following relief :'(a) that the respondent-company M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., through its managing director, 100, Central Point, Morarji Mills Compound, Parle, Mumbai-12, be wound up under and in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ;(b) that the official liquidator attached to the honourable court be appointed as liquidator provisionally in respect of all the assets, properties and affairs of the respondent-company ;(c) award cost of the petition to the humble petitioner ;(d) pass such further order as this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. (hereinafter shall b...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2014
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant criminal second bail application under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) CrPC, petitioner Hira Lal seeks bail on the ground that for a period of 60 days from the date of his production before the Magistrate, the police failed to file the challan and, therefore, the applicant filed an application seeking bail on the ground that the Magistrate is not competent to authorise detention of the petitioner after 60 days from the date he was initially produced before the Magistrate. The bail application filed by the applicant came to the rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 1.12.2004 holding therein that the period for filing the challan is 90 days and not 60 days.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the order impugned and the police investigation diary (case diary).3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 47.200 Kgs of poppy-...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj582; 2005WLC(Raj)UC545
Govind Mathur, J.1. A mining lease was granted to the petitioner under an office order dated 19.12.90 by the Superintending Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner. The lease was granted at the annual dead rent of Rs. 21,5697- with a condition that the same shall be revised time to time in accordance with the Rules. As a consequence of the office order dated 19.12.90 a lease deed was executed between the parties on 11.1.91. In the lease deed also it was mentioned that dead-rent shall be subject to revision as per the Rules and the dead rent may be revised proportionately if there is increase in the rate of royalty. The lease granted to the petitioner was to remain in currency for a period of ten years.2. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Ganganagar by office order dated 27.3.92 enhanced the dead-rent from Rs. 21,569/- per year to Rs. 38,599/- per year. The dead rent was enhanced as the rates of royalty were increased. The Assistant Mining Engineer commu...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ganesh Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj969; 2005(2)WLC311
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioners-Union of India and Others have Submitted Writ Petitions No. 6562/2003 and 1867/2004 against the Orders dated 29.5.2002 and 12.12.2003 respectively passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal') in Original Applications (OA) No. 244/2001 and 92/2003 respectively filed by respondent No. 1 Ganesh Lal. The subject matter of both the writ petitions being inter-related, on common facts and involving common questions, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The parties have already had various rounds of litigation, culminating into the two impugned orders. It shall therefore, be useful to narrate chronology of events :Preliminary3. Respondent No. 1 Ganesh Lal was informed by the Superintendent (Excise), Udaipur by the letter dated 2.1.1990 that his name had been forwarded by the Employment Office, Udaipur for appointment on the post of Gardener as daily wager and he...
Tag this Judgment!Sheelu @ Suresh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2253; RLW2005(2)Raj1262; 2005(2)WLC725
J.R. Goyal, J.1. As many as three accused were inducted for trial before the learned Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur in sessions case No. 7/1999 for having committed murder of Raju. Learned Judge vide judgment dated 2,3.2000 convicted the accused appellant Sheelu @ Suresh Under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,0007- and in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. Other accused Peetu and Mahesh @ Bulla were however acquitted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the accused appellant Sheelu @ Suresh preferred this appeal.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Meetha Ram (PW4) father of the deceased Raju submitted a written report Ex. P2 in S.M.S. Hospital to Suresh Kumar (PW. 17), S.I., Police Station Mansarover, Jaipur on 10.11.1998 at 10:15 p.m. to the effect that at about 9 p.m. when he was sitting in a shop situated in his house No. 62/331-32...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Shankar Srivastava Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1736; 2005(2)WLC612
K.S. Rathore, J.1. These are two writ petitions involving similar questions of law and, therefore, both the petitions are being heard together and decided by this common order.2. The facts of the writ petition No. 6144/2004 are being taken as leading case. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petitions has prayed for writ, order or direction to quash and set aside FIR Nos. 109/2004 and 110/2004 registered before Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and all investigation and proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.3. The brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as Member, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, an FIR No. 109/2004 under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(a), 13(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with 120B IPC was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau on 9.6.2004.4. The allegation in the FIR was that according to source information illegal benefit was to be granted by the petitioner by passing a review order in a revenue matter titled Kamla Devi v. State. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1859; 2005(2)WLC435
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Application for substitution is allowed. Amended cause title be tagged at proper place.2. Petitioner having suffered from a major mental illness, i.e., Chronic Schizophrenia, the present writ petition has been filed through his natural guardian the mother Smt. Premwati Jain. Subsequently the mother of the petitioner Smt. Premwati Jain also died and now she has been substituted by another natural guardian the elder brother Gajendra Singh Jain.3. The petitioner entered into the services of the Forest Department as a Forest Guard on 24.9.1970. Having suffered from a major mental ailment, the petitioner submitted an application on 27.6.2000 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.10.2000 on the ground of illness. Since no reply was received from the Department to the above application, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 14.12.2000 requesting the concerning authorities to grant him voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.4.2001. It appears that without considering th...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Lal Sharma Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ627Raj; RLW2005(3)Raj1934
Ashok Parihar, J.1. There is no dispute that the petitioner stood retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.7.1997. Amount of provident fund so far as contribution made by the petitioner, has been paid in the month of April, 1998. However, the amount of contribution made by the respondent- University was withheld and the same was paid only in the month of June, 2003. The only reason for withholding the amount of contribution made by the respondent-University towards provident fund as given in the reply, has been that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner at the relevant time.2. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show any rule or provision either under the Provident Fund Act or the Service Rules governing the service conditions of the employees of the respondent University by which part of provident fund amount can be withheld pending criminal case against an employee. Even no provision has been shown by which any deduction...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Lahoti and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC470
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. After the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioners moved an application under Section 204, Cr.P.C. thereby raising certain objections. The learned Trial Court after considering the objections and hearing both the parties concluded that all the objections raised by the petitioners are the factual matrix, which could be decided only after recording the evidence and accordingly dismissed the petitioners' application vide order dated 16.8.2003. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order, the petitioners preferred revision petition before the Court of Sessions. The learned revisional Court was of the view that making observations on the merits at this stage would adversely affect the case of either party. Otherwise also, in the opinion of the revisional Court, the application filed under Section 204, Cr.P.C. after taking cognizance of the offence was not maintainabl...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Vinay Singhal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj58
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that one industrial unit M/s. Shiv Shakti Saw Mill situated in the District Bhilwara was defaulter in payment of loan amount of Rajasthan Financial Corporation, therefore, the possession of the property was taken over by the RFC and the unit was auctioned. The petitioner participated and gave his bid. The petitioner's bid was found highest and an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the RFC on 9-2-1995. The petitioner agreed to purchase the unit for a consideration of Rs. 2,85,000/- The petitioner did not repay the due amount for which he agreed and he committed default in payment of Installments of the said amount. The RFC initiated proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and took over the property again which was given to the petitioner vide agreement dated 9-2-1995. This property was sold by the RFC for a consideration of Rs. 1,55,000/- only. The au...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »