Rajasthan Court July 2005 Judgments
Hindustan Copper Limited Vs. Bhagwati Gases Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR622(Raj); RLW2005(3)Raj2199
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner filed an application on 13.10.2004 before the Additional District Judge, Khetri for staying proceedings to enable the petitioner to move before the District Judge, Jhunjhunu to withdraw the case from the Court of Additional District Judge, Khetri to the Court of District Judge, Jhunjhunu on the ground that under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1996) the principal civil court of original jurisdiction is only the court of District Judge, Jhunjhunu and not the court of Additional, District Judge, Khetri and therefore, the court has no jurisdiction to hear application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.2. The Additional District Judge, Khetri vide its order dated 4.12.2004 dismissed the petitioner's application with cost of Rs. 1000/-. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.12.2004.3. Precisely controversy is with regard to the fact that whether the court of A...
Tag this Judgment!Guman Singh Vs. J.K. Tyre Code and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ538Raj; RLW2005(4)Raj2601; 2005(4)WLC197
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.3.1994, in the above referred writ petition whereby the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 8th September 1993 has been quashed with a further direction to decide the approval application filed by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') on merits after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties within a period of four months.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed as Operator in the Air Conditioning Department in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Kota in the year 1970 and on 1.11.1971 he was sent on deputation with his consent on the post of Rounder to J.K. Tyre Cord, Kota, from J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Kota.3. That on 25.7.1990, a charge sheet was issued to the appellant levelling charges of disobedience and unlawful absence etc. Thereafter an en...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Singh Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1445; 2006(2)WLC629
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge delivered in SBCWP No. 1606/992 on 14.11.1994 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant challenging the allotment of a flat on second floor and not on the ground floor which he had booked, was rejected and the order charging penal interest of Rs, 22,500/- was also upheld.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved herein, it is essential to relate the substantial facts of the case which are to the effect that the petitioner-appellant filed an application in the Rajasthan Housing Board for allotment of a flat in the reserved category of scheduled caste for which 14% reservation was made in the year 1979. In the year 1982 under the Self Financing Scheme, the petitioner-appellant had opted for allotment of a ground floor flat in Jawahat Nagar Scheme at Jaipur, but the petitioner-appellant's name was not included in the lottery which was held on...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Mohan Sharma Vs. Rpsc and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2725; 2005(4)WLC354
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The basic determinates of the Constitutional conception of PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (for short 'RPSC') are impartiality and integrity. The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution provided for a PSC at the Union as well as the State level, as an autonomous body to carry on its functions independently, fairly and impartiality. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R/o Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav v. Chairman Bihar PSC : [2000]2SCR688 restated the morals of the PSC. It was indicated in para 34 thus:'The credibility of the institution of a Public Service Commission is founded upon the faith of the common man in its proper functioning. The faith would be eroded an confidence destroyed if it appears that the Chairman or the members of the Commission Act subjectively and not objectively or that their actions are suspect. Society expects honesty, integrity and complete objectivity from the Chairman and members of the Commission. The Commission must act fairly, without an...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Construction Company Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2656; 2005(4)WLC234
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant M/s. Shiv Construction Company whose connected appeal No. 36/1993 for other contract with the same department has been decided by a separate judgment today. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Bikaner in Civil case No. 4/1989 dated 31.1.1992 holding that application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the plaintiff on 23.12.1988, was time barred by the bar of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urged before this Court that Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply in the case of application under Section 20 of the old Arbitration Act, 1940 and no limitation is prescribed for filing application in Section 20 of that Act. According to her, the final bill prepared on 30.5.79 was accepted by the plaintiff under protest and in fact the final bill itself was not fully paid by the department and some other deduction...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj56; 2006(1)ARBLR615(Raj); RLW2005(4)Raj2667; 2005(4)WLC329
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 73,554/-. The defendant petitioner instead of applying for the reference to the arbitration, submitted written statement and in the written statement took a plea that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law as there is an arbitration clause in the contract on the basis of which the plaintiff is seeking the relief in the suit. The trial Court framed issues No. 3 and 4 as the pleas were taken by the defendant in the written statement about the maintainability of the suit. The trial Court decided two issues against the petitioner defendant on the ground that no application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1999) has been filed by the defendant and secondly the defendant has not produced the original copy of the arbitration a...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Construction Company Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR620(Raj); RLW2005(4)Raj2670; 2005(4)WLC367
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.11.1992 by the District Judge, Bikaner against Shiv Construction Co. v. State of Rajasthan (civil misc. case No. 10/89), rejecting the suit of the applicant on the ground that Clause 23 of the Contract in question cannot be construed to be arbitration clauses and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to raise arbitration dispute with respect to the said contract before the Arbitrator.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. Ms. Rekha Borana, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that Clause 23 of the contract reproduced in the memo of appeal which is extracted below:'Clause 23.- Except where otherwise specified in the contract the decision of the Chief Engineer of the Government of Rajasthan for the time being shall be final, conclusive, and binding on all parties the contract upon all questions relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawin...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Shanker Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj116; 2005(4)WLC635
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18th July, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) by which, the OA filed by the petitioner was disposed of with the following observation:--We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and of the view that since the appeal of the applicant against his suspension order is pending before the competent authority and the competent authority has already seized of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice; if the direction is given to the competent authority to decide the appeal of the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, without going into merits of the case, the competent authority is directed to decide the appeal of the applicant against his suspension order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by passing a speaking and reasoned order2. The petitioner filed OA before the Tribunal with the following prayer: -(i) quash and se...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj60
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. A mining lease for mineral marble (ML No. 292/89) granted to the petitioner for ten years from 20-11-1989 was cancelled by the Mining Engineer, Rajsamand by the order dated 12-8-1992 (Annex. 1) for default and deficiencies in payment of dead-rent, for filing of the record for royalty assessment and the monthly statistical figures. This order dated 12-8-1992 was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). This appeal (No. 61/94) was filed as late as on 23-4-1994 and was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay which was disallowed by the Addl. Director (Mines), Udaipur Zone, Udaipur and the appeal was dismissed by the order dated 24-10-1994 (Annex. 3). A further appeal as provided under Rule 43 of the Rules was taken by the petitioner to the State Government. However, this appeal was also dismissed by the order dated 18-5-1995 ...
Tag this Judgment!Highway Tyre Retread Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj521; 2006(1)WLC764
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. 1. The petitioner, Highway Tyre Retread Pvt. Ltd. is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of retreading of tyres. The petitioner applied for a loan to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation which was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 13.1 lacs. The petitioner also applied for the sanction of investment subsidy under a scheme called 'The State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme For New Industries, 1990' (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme/the Subsidy Scheme'). The application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy was allowed and the petitioner was sanctioned an amount of Rs. 2,09,6007- being 20% of the amount of fixed capital investment as admissible for the grant of capital investment subsidy under the aforesaid scheme on 16.3.1991 in the first meeting of the District Level Committee ('DLC' for short) held on 16.3.1991. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents State of Rajasthan and Rajasthan Financial Corporation ('RFC' for sh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »