Rajasthan Court May 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.
Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2761; 2005(3)WLC508
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 4.12.2001 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the judgment and award dated 2.8.2001 Annex. 14 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted an application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 and has stated that before deciding the writ petition, application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 should be decided first. He has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Dhan v. The Judge, Labour Court and Ors. 20032 WLC Raj. 485 : RLW 20032 Raj. 999 and Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Judge, Labour Court 1990-LB2-GJX 0111-Raj.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Workmen v. Hindustan Vegetables Oil Corporation Ltd. ...
Ajay Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2264; 2005(4)WLC223
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This special appeal has been filed under the High Court Ordinance of 1949, against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 6972/92, wherein the appellant-petitioner had challenged the seniority list of Drug Inspectors and was claiming that his name should have been placed higher on the seniority list by granting him benefit of the appointment while he was functioning in a temporary capacity on the post of Drug Inspector.2. It appears that the petitioner had been initially appointed on 26.2.1977 in a temporary capacity on ad-hoc basis on the post of Drug-Inspector and continued to function for a period of seven years. Thereafter the petitioner was not granted a regular appointment on the post but a fresh selection for the post of Drug-Inspectors was initiated by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 1984. The petitioner also applied for the post and by virtue of fresh selection, he was granted an order of re...
Swaroopi Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2849
Ashok Parihar, J.1. There is no dispute that the petitioner been mother of deceased employee Late Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, who was an employee of the State Government, is entitled for family pension. The file of the family pension appears to be shuttling between different Departments only on the point that whether the petitioner was dependent on the deceased employee or not. It has not been clarified as to how the necessary verifications, as required by the Department, could be clone at the official level. Petitioner has already stated in her application and in the affidavit as well that she was fully dependent on her son, the deceased Government employee. The attitude and the pathetic and mechanical approach of the officers in such matters is highly deprecable. Absolutely insensitive approach has been taken by the concerning authorities in the present case and the petitioner is shuttling from table to table for her legitimate claim. No satisfactory explanation has been submitted on behal...
Mahendra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2844; 2005(4)WLC178
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Father of the petitioner had challenged his termination by way of raising an industrial dispute. The Labour Court passed an award dated 14.10.1991 in favour of father of petitioner holding the termination of services as illegal and unjustified and awarding reinstatement with full back wages. The award came to be challenged by the respondents in a writ petition filed before this Court. The back wages as awarded by the Labour Court were stayed by this Court vide order dated 30.3.1992. Thereafter, father of the petitioner was reinstated in service on 20.5.1992 and his services were also regularised on 3.7.1999, however, unfortunately, died on 26.12.2000 while in service. The petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment in place of his father.3. The only objection as raised on behalf of the respondents has been that the concerned workman had not worked for requisite period as a regular employee. As such, compassionate appointment ...
Gomti Devi and anr. Vs. Ashok Bhandari and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2401
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These two appeals are by two different appellants but the facts of the two cases are so intermingled that they are required to be decided by common judgment.3. Both the appellants are aggrieved against the order of the trial Court passed in two miser applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC dated 19.09.2005 in two separate suits, e trial Court allowed the injunction applications filed by the plaintiffs/respondents and restrained the appellants/defendants - purchasers of the plot in dispute by registered sale-deed, from alienating the property and from parting with possession of e plot in dispute and further restrained them from raising any construction over the plot in dispute.4. It will be worth while to mention the relationship of the persons who are involved in the land dealing. One Bhoor Chand - defendant in civil original Suit No. 36/2005 and Anr. Sampat Raj - defendant in civil original suit No. 37/2005 are t...
Abdul Zabbar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2395
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, three in number, were placed on trial before the learned Special Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots and Man Singh Murder Case) Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 1/1997. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 7, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:1 Abdul Mannan, (2) Afzal and (3) Abdul Zabbar:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.Under Section 324/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment one year.Under Section 449 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.All sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on December 9, 1992 informant Satya Narayan (PW.7) submitted a written report with the Poli...
Suresh Chandra Singhal Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1611; 2005(3)WLC255
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949, has been preferred by the appellant-Suresh Chandra Singhal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.C.W.P. No. 3920/2004 (Suresh Chandra Singhal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) dated 27th September, 2004 which was heard and dismissed alongwith a batch of several other writ petitions involving common questions of law. As a consequence of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant who had been suspended from functioning as the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Gangapur City, was allowed to remain under suspension till the conclusion of the enquiry, which was ordered to be conducted expeditiously by the Judicial officer to whom the enquiry has been entrusted. The appellant having specified period to function as member and Chairman of the Board, is suffering each day on account of pendency of the enquiry which is yet to be concluded a...
Mukesh Chand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj231; 2005(3)WLC709
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, five in number along with three others, were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 18/2002 (14/2002). Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 18, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:(1) Mukesh Chand, (2) Vijay Singh, (3) Ramchandra, (4) Kanhaiya Lal and (5) Nannu Ram:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 323 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 447 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The pr...
Official Liquidator, Swastik House Leasing Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. M ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2005
Reported in: [2008]83SCL347(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the application. Application is under Section 457(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Official Liquidator of M/s. Swastik House Leasing Limited (In Liquidation) by Judge's Summons and prayer has been made therein for issuance of the directions under the section aforesaid. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant I am satisfied that the application deserves acceptance and accordingly the same is allowed.2. The Official Liquidator shall have the powers with the sanction of the Court to settle the list of contributories and for filing of proof by the Creditors of the Company in respect of their debts and claims for priority if any under Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the exercise by the Official Liquidator, all or any of the powers under Section 457 and any-other matters requiring directions of the Court as follows,(1) to institute or defend any suit, prosecution, or other legal proceeding, ...
Radha Kishan Soni Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Raj)34; [2005]277ITR56(Raj)
1. The appeal was admitted in terms of the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in reversing order passed by the CIT(A) on account of addition made by the AO regarding seized gold ornaments in absence of Panchnama or valuation report, irrespective of the fact that Panchnama was prepared at the time of search on 7th Sept., 1989 ?'2. A search was conducted in this case on 7th Sept., 1989, inter alia, jewellery weighing 382.5 gms. was found at the time of search. Before AO, the case of the assessee was that there are three ladies in the family and this jewellery belongs to them. The explanation was rejected and addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was made on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and precious stones.3. In appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) considering the status of the assessee found that the gold jewellery belonged to three ladies and addition on account of unexplained investment in gold jewellery was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »