Rajasthan Court April 2005 Judgments
Jhandu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1500; 2005(3)WLC213
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge Rajgarh District Alwar bearing Sessions Case No. 18 2001. Learned Judge vide judgment dated June 13, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. Under Section 341 IPC:To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.2. To prosecution case as unfolded during trial....... that on February 11, 2001 at 3.10 PM the informant Sawai Ram (PW.5) went to the Police Station Raini with injured Jagdish and submitted written report with the averments that around 10-11 AM on the said day Jhandu Meena (appellant), Ramdhan and Megha were putting 'Balli' towards the well of the complainant party. The complainant party opposed this act and gathered middle men to pers...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan Yadav Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1505; 2005(3)WLC585
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the complainant- petitioner, learned counsel for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor.2. The complainant-petitioner has filed this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the accused non-petitioner No. 2 Hitesh by Shri Kailash Prashad Meena, Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Tijara, District Alwar in case No. 23/794/04, FIR No. 171/2004.3. The petitioner lodged a FIR on 17th July, 2004 at Police Station Tapukda, District Alwar for the offence under Section 377 IPC against the accused non-petitioner No. 2 wherein it was alleged that on 14th July, 2004 the accused committed the above offence with his younger son Arun aged about 6 years.4. The accused non-petitioner No. 2 was arrested on 2nd Sept., 2004. He moved an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail before the Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Tejara, Alwa...
Tag this Judgment!M. Processing House P. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1917; 2005(3)WLC443
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The additional affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 is taken on record.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is an industrial unit and claiming benefits under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1971 for which petitioner submitted his application in time and before the cut out date 30.12.1988. The petitioner was denied the benefit of the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, upon which the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/1997, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16th July, 1998 and respondents were directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy.4. After the above decision dated 16.7.1998 of this Court, the Commissioner (Industries), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur informed the Addl. Secretary (Industries), Government of India vide letter dated 15.10.2001 stating therein that the petitioner applied for the loan an subsidy benefit in time by sub...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) (the) Vs. Trustees of Major Maharaj Harisingh Ben ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj250; RLW2005(3)Raj1878
ORDER:--35. The learned Single Judge has quashed the Annexure-12 having held that it also suffers from the vice of being non-speaking. In other words the final order of acquisition Annexure-12 does not contain reasons. On fair reading of the impugned order Annexure-12, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not correct in saying so. The competent authority (the Collector) considering the objections held that the land under acquisition was requisitioned under Section 23 of the Act of 1971. The possession of the land was taken over by the Central Government w.e.f. 1st July, 1976 in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1971, The land under acquisition during the period of requisition has been fully developed by raising number of constructions at the expenses of the Central Government. The objector was in full knowledge of the public purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired right from the beginning. The objector has received recurring compens...
Tag this Judgment!Aziz @ Azizulla Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3056; RLW2005(3)Raj1975; 2005(3)WLC402
V.K. Bali, J.1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of all four DB Criminal Appeals bearing No. 436/1995, filed by Aziz @ Azizulla, 545/1997 Naeem Mulla Khan, 313/1995 Bhupendra Singh and 1211/2002 Jodhraj Singh as also the DB Cr. Revision Petition No. 315/1995 Mukut Behari Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., Whereas Aziz @ Azizulla and Bhupendra Singh for incident leading to death of son of Mukut Behari were tried together and convicted by the learned trial Judge, vide order of conviction and sentence dated 06.05.1995, appellant Naeemulla with regard to same incident was tried separately and convicted vide judgment dated 22.9.1997. Appellant Jodhraj Singh for the same incident was tried yet separately and convicted vide judgment dated 22.07.2002. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties also suggest that all these matters need to be disposed of by a common judgment, even though, the deposition of the witnesses if there be a variance in any of the trials may be...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Santosh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1970; 2005(3)WLC270
V.K. Bali, J.1. The widow of Ram Niwas, petitioner in the original lis and respondent in the present writ petition, is clamouring for grant of family pension ever since her husband Ram Niwas died on 29.12.1988. She succeeded in obtaining the desired relief when she filed O.A. No. 233/2003 before the C.A.T. as the same was allowed vide order dated 7.4.2003. It is against this order passed by the learned C.A.T. that the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed. Hopefully, the tales of woe of a widow would end today after seventeen years of litigation.2. The bare minimum facts that need necessary mention reveal that Ram Niwas was employed on the post of Helper initially on 8.11.1979 as casual labour. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.1.1983. He was contributing towards provident fund account. Unfortunately, he died on 29.12.1988 while on active service. In the year 1986, list was prepared for screening the casual labour in order to regular...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ683Raj; RLW2005(2)Raj1415
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 03.02.2004, dismissing the writ petition.2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Ramesh Kumar was engaged as a casual labour on temporary basis in the year 1985 in the Irrigation Department of the State of Rajasthan. The State Government by order dated 17.11.1988, abolished the posts of work-charged employees with effect from 01.02.1988. It was further directed to dispose of the service of the work-charged employees appointed during the period from 01.04.1985 to 30.09.1988. Accordingly, the services of the respondent-workman alongwith similarly large number of persons situated were retrenched by order dated 07.12.1988. On industrial dispute being raised, a reference was made to the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar. The Labour Court found the order of termination illegal, being in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes A...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(103)ECC152; 2005(186)ELT3(Raj)
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Amongst others, the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of tyres for which it has its manufacturing facility at Kankroli, Rajasthan. For the purposes of its manufacturing in Rajasthan of such tyres, the petitioner imports Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric (NTCF) from various manufacturers/exporters of other countries including from those situated in Peoples Republic of China. The NTCF so imported is comprised of three different varieties namely, the grey fabric, dipped fabric and Cycle Tyre Cord Fabric (CTC). The petitioner is also a member of Automotive Tyre Manufacturer Association (ATMA). The association represents the collective interest of tyre manufacturers.2. The Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry (ASFI), whose members are the manufacturers of synthetic fibre in India, including NTCF, submitted a written application before the Designated Author...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Committee, Shri Gandhi Shikshan Samiti and anr. Vs. Smt. Anit ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2203; 2005(3)WLC505
V.K. Bali, J.1. Managing Committee of Gandhi Shikshan Samiti (appellant) after finding that respondent Smt. Anita Joshi was eligible, gave her regular appointment on 3.8.1996. After almost eight years that Smt. Anita Joshi had continued to hold the post, she received a notice that she was being sent for one year leave without pay to obtain essential certificate prescribed for the post of Teacher within the said period, failing which her services shall be deemed to have been terminated. This order was challenged by the respondent before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur ('the Tribunal'), which vide detailed orders dated 18.8.2004 allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order referred to above, which was declared to be ineffective and void. The Tribunal also directed the appellant Institution that the respondent may be granted pay and allowances as per the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission according to the Rules. The appellant Institution cha...
Tag this Judgment!Vans Gopal Singh and ors. Vs. Jaipur Udyog and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas697(Raj); [2008]88SCL194(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the respondent M/s. Jaipur Udyog Limited, PNB Building, Third Floor, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the respondent-company').2. The ground pleaded for winding up of the respondent-company is that the respondent-company is not making the payment of the dues of its employees. It is difficult to appreciate the winding up petition by the applicants for recovery of payment of their salary/wages. For recovery thereof they have many remedies i.e., to raise an industrial dispute through petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 or to go to the Payment of Wages Authority, but that has not been done.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the wages of the employees of the respondent-company could only be paid after sale of its properties. For sale of the properties of the respondent-company for payment of the wages of its employees, in my ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »