Rajasthan Court April 2005 Judgments
Shankar Yadav Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1983; 2005(3)WLC425
V.K. Bali, J.1. The matter has come up on an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by and on behalf of accused- appellant Shanker Yadav for issuing directions to the jail authorities for setting-off the period of his detention in police and judicial custody during investigation, inquiry and trial.2. On the aforesaid application being moved, this court while disposing of the application directed on 25.2.2005 the Government Advocate to communicate to the authorities for calculating the period of his detention expeditiously, but not later than four weeks.3. It appears that a letter dated 22.03.2005 was addressed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fist Track) No. 1, Alwar seeking directions/guidance as to whether the period spent by the appellant in custody during investigation, inquiry and trial was to be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. or not against the sentences imposed upon him and a copy whereof was endorsed to the Deputy Registra...
Tag this Judgment!Mukat Lal Mathur Vs. JaIn Narayan Vyas University
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj320; RLW2005(4)Raj2539; 2005(3)WLC492
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.1.2001 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.3. The appellant-petitioner was employed in National Institute for the Visually Handicapped, Dehradun from 1982 until filing of the writ petition. During the period of his aforesaid employment at Dehradun, the petitioner-appellant with the permission of his employer got himself registered as a Research Scholar for doing his Ph.D. With the University of Jodhpur. His registration was under Dr. Gopal Bhardawaj, Research Supervisor, Department of Sociology. His registration was up to 10 December, 1990. On October 11, 1990, the petitioner-appellant had submitted an application through his Research Supervisor to the respondent- University for seeking permission to Submit his Ph.D. Thesis for examination i.e., before two months of expiry of registration period.4. That application was not ...
Tag this Judgment!ind Bank Merchant Banking Services Ltd. Vs. Harshita Organics Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: [2008]88SCL274(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record of the application.The petitioner has filed this application under Section 457(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 and prayer has been made therein for a direction to the Official Liquidator to allow the representative of the petitioner to inspect the factory land and building, plant and machineries and assets and sell the same so as to expedite the recovery of secured creditors including the petitioner.2. The petitioner has failed to produce on the record any document to show and establish that it is a secured creditor of the Company, in liquidation. In the absence of any evidence on the record that the petitioner is a secured creditor of the Company, in liquidation, the prayer made in the application for sale of the assets of it, cannot be granted.3. As regards to the other prayer made to permit the representative of the petitioner to inspect the land and building, plant and machineries and asset...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Vs. the Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1279; 2005(3)WLC537
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the judgment and award dtd. 3.11.2001 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) be modified to the extent that the petitioner be granted the relief of reinstatement in place of amount of compensation of Rs. 10,0007- as awarded by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) to the petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Jaldhari (Class IV employee) with effect from 1.4.1994. After about two years of services, the services of the petitioner were retrenched in the month of Oct., 1996.3. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government made a reference of the dispute to the respondent No. 1 vide notification dated 19....
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi NaraIn @ Latoor Vs. the State of Raj. and Ladu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1678; 2005(3)WLC780
V.K. Bali, J.1. In an occurrence that took place on 29.9.1993 at village Delawas, whereas one person from the side of the complainant party namely Motiram lost his life, 20 others were injured. In the same very occurrence, ten persons from the side of the appellants were injured. The only but significant question that arises for adjudication in the present case is as to whether the appellants caused death of one and injured 20 others in exercise of their right of private defence of person and property or that they constituted unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant party, thus committing various offences for which they were tried and held guilty.2. Prosecution put 40 persons on trial out of whom whereas Laxmi Narayan @ Latoor has been held guilty for an offence Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life, Ram Swaroop, Narsiram, Gyarsa, Ganga Ram and Punia @ Puniram have been held guilty for offence Under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced likewise. All the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaveer Pd. Meena Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1844; 2005(3)WLC243
V.K. Bali, J.1. Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 6.2.2004 passed by the learned Central Administration Tribunal, Jaipur vide which Original Application No. 495/2003 filed by the petitioner seeking declaration of result of written test held on 12.6.2003 and declaring notification dated 14.8.2003 to be null and void was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case as projected in the petition reveal that the petitioner being eligible to appear in the examination for selection on the post of Diesel Chargeman (Electrical) submitted his application which was entertained. However, the written test for selection was not conducted and the respondent department readvertised the posts vide notification dated 4.3.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that vide notification mentioned above, reference of earlier notifications dated 21.1.2002 was also given. The copy of the notification has been annexed to the petition as Annex.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Lrs of Bhinva Ram Vs. Sohan Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2433; 2005(4)WLC34
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Civil Original Suit No. 17/1977 (2/1972) filed by the respondent Sohanram for specific performance of the contract for sale of agricultural land in the alternative for refund of Rs. 1500/- with interest was decreed for both the reliefs in the alternative by the learned Munsif, Sardarshahar on 5.10.1978 with a further decree for injunction. The learned District Judge, Churu, in Appeal No. 67/1978 modified the decree by setting aside the relief of injunction but otherwise maintained the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant on 24.8.1982. The present appeal by the legal representatives of the original defendant Bhinvaram was admitted by this Court on 2.2.1983 while formulating the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the agreement to sale should not be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff did not express his readiness and willingness to perform his part o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Handpump Mistry Karmchari Sangh Intuc. Vs. State of Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj204; 2005(3)WLC310
R.P. Vyas, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-union, Rajasthan Handpump Mistry Karmchari Sangh, INTUC (Rajasthan), through its President, Shri Samson Bhagora, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein that the letter dated 10.7.2001 (Annexure 9), issued by the State of Rajasthan, may be declared illegal and invalid; the same may be quashed and set aside and the Respondents may be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners-union, as mentioned in Appendix 'A', in pursuance to the letter dated 10.7.2001 (Annexure 9). It is also prayed that the appropriate Government may be directed to refer the reference to the labour Court.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that vide order dated 19.5.1993 (Annexure 1), the petitioners, as mentioned in Appendix 'A', were called for interview on 22.5.1993, for the post of Mahila Hand Pump Mistry. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bichhiwara, District - Dungarpur, Responde...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Construction Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj103; 2006(2)ARBLR321(Raj); RLW2006(1)Raj782; 2006(1)WLC704
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The applicant-M/s. Pioneer Construction has filed this application for appointment of an arbitrator in regard to a dispute which he has raised claiming additional amount on account of price escalation of the materials which he had used in construction of the quarters to be used as residence by the Judicial Officers.2. To appreciate the controversy it may be noticed that a contract was awarded to the applicant in the year 1995 for construction of residential accommodation for judicial officers by the Public Works Department of the Government of Rajasthan which was to be completed by 23.4.1996. But the petitioner executed the contract finally in the year 1998 for which the entire payment also was made to the applicant in the year 1998 itself. The applicant however had a late realisation in the year 2001 when it struck him that he could claim additional payment in regard to the contract which he had executed in the year 1998 towards price escalation taking the advan...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2486; 2006WLC(Raj)UC22
H.R. Panwar, J.1. The matter is called twice, no one appears for the petitioner.2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. I have carefully gone through the memo of revision petition and the order impugned dated 3.3.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter whereby the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences Under Sections 166, 167 & 204 IPC against the petitioner and issued the process. Aggrieved by the order taking cognizance and issuing process, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition Under Section 397/401 IPC.3. In the memo of revision, the first ground by which the order impugned has been assailed by the petitioner is that the alleged offence was committed in the year 1999 and the cognizance has been taken in the year 2003 and therefore, according to the petitioner the order taking cognizance is barred by period of limitation.4. From the perusal of the order...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »