Rajasthan Court August 2005 Judgments
H.S. Bapan Vs. E.S.i. Corpn.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ531Raj; RLW2005(4)Raj2719
Jain, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 13.1.04 passed by the Special Judge, Sati Nivaran, Rajasthan and Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur whereby Cr. Revision Petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed against the order dated 17.7.02 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby an application filed by petitioners under Section 204 Cr.P.C. to drop the proceedings was rejected.2. The complainant non-petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur for the offence under Section 406 and 409 IPC alleging that accused No. 1 to 4 are Directors of accused No. 5 M/s. Perfect Thread Mills Ltd., Udaipur. The accused persons deducted the amount of Employees State Insurance from the salary of the employees for the period from August, 1987 to February, 1988 but did not deposit the same with the Department. The learned trial Court took cognizance agai...
Tag this Judgment!Sanju Legha and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2972; 2006(1)WLC10
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioners herein have filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondent No. 2-the Convener/Coordinator, Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges in Rajasthan, who had published a prospectus for Rajasthan Medical Common Admission Test for the academic year 2005-06 for filing-up the seats of private Medical and dental Colleges incorporating a provision as follows:-'50% of the total seats are reserved for candidates of Rajasthan domicile and 50% of the seats are reserved for the candidates out of Rajasthan.' 2. This provision gave a cause to the petitioners to file this writ petition alleging that the respondent Federation although is following its prospectus and has reserved 50% of the seats for the candidates of Rajasthan, remaining 50% of the seats which were to be reserved for the candidates out of Rajasthan, as per the prospectus, has not been allotted to them by the Federation while granting admission to the selected candidates w...
Tag this Judgment!Mustafa Vs. Smt. Khursida
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj31
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has been preferred by the husband-Mustafa against the judgment and decree dated 6-11-2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 106/2002, whereby the learned Judge accepted the petition for dissolution of marriage submitted by the wife-Khursida under the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 ('the Act of 1939' hereinafter). 2. Brief facts relevant for the present appeal are that the respondent submitted petition before the Family Court, Jodhpur on 6-5-2002 seeking dissolution of her marriage with the appellant contracted by her parents on 15-10-1992 fundamentally on the ground that she was 7 years 23 days of age at the time of the marriage, her date of birth being 23rd September, 1985 which was also entered in the passport of her mother. According to the respondent, the marriage was never consummated and there was no cohabitation ever between the parties; ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chand Kaushik Vs. Saraf Synthetics (Raj.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]68SCL427(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. In this application,on, under Rule 9 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, the prayer has been made for grant of the following relief:It is, therefore, prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and an appropriate direction may be given to official liquidator to make the payment under claim submitted before it immediately, and in preference to any other creditors. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also kindly be passed in favour of the Appellant. This relief cannot be granted for the reason that even if the applicant has preferential claim, the adjudication thereof is to be made by the Official Liquidator and then to decide the preferential claim of applicant and the distribution of the assets of the company is to be made as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; that has not been done so far. In case the prayer made is granted it may result in getting the money in excess of the amount which...
Tag this Judgment!Yogendra Nandwana Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj73; RLW2005(4)Raj2869
V.K. Bali, J.1. Challenge in the present bunch of petitions bearing numbers 2613/2005, 2091/2005 and 2372/2005 is to the vires and constitutional validity of Section 26(b) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' of 1959) as inserted by Rajasthan Act No. 22 of 2000 in Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. Provisions contained in Section 26(b) of the Act of 1959 reproduced below have been challenged on the ground of discrimination in as much as, similar provision has not made by the Legislature in respect of election to public offices in institutions of Local Self Government or in the State Legislature and Parliament. It is on that count alone that the concerned provision under challenge has been styled to be arbitrary and thus, impermissible in view of the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.'26. General qualification for Members--A person, notwithstanding that he is otherwise qualified, shall be disqualified for being chose...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. (the) Ltd. Vs. Smt. Leelavati and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC146; RLW2005(4)Raj2950; 2005(4)WLC691
V.K. Bali, J.1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. the appellant herein aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8.1.1998 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 618/91, has filed the present appeal with an obvious prayer to set aside the said order.2. Brief facts of the case, in so far as the same are relevant for the only contention raised on behalf of the appellant, reveal that Smt. Leelavati and her two major sons Hari Shanker and Ganpat Sharma claimed compensation on account of death of Ramgopal, their husband and father respectively, who died in an accident. Learned Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 55 years at the time of accident and according to Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applied multiplier of '5'. The Tribunal held that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2290/- per month and he was getting bonus also of Rs. 2906/-, his total income being Rs. 30,794/-. The claimants were awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,500/-. Aggrieved, ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hemant Kaushik and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC287; 2006(1)WLC237
Vineet Kothari, J.1. The present appeal by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has been filed against the award dated 7.9.1994 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal'). On 19.8.1992 at 1.30 p.m. in the afternoon one Lavnesh, son of the claimant Hamant Kaushik met with an accident with Truck No. RRN 1101 which was claimed to be insured with the appellant Company. The Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 1,20,000 holding the Insurance Company, the present appellant liable to pay the said amount of compensation in terms of the award. The respondent No. 2 Mr. Kanhaiyalal, the owner of the offended vehicle was also held jointly and severally liable along with the appellant Insurance Company.2. Being aggrieved with the said award, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal before this Court on the ground that the owner of the offended truck Mr. Kanhaiyalal fraudulently obtained a policy cover note of the Insurance Company for the said t...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Prasad and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2695; 2005(4)WLC679
N.K. Jain, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26th July, 2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases (Sessions Judge), Bharatpur in Special Case No. 55/98 whereby he rejected the application of the petitioners dated 8.7.05 filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the prosecution witness No. 3 Dr. B.L. Meena for cross-examination.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that two FIRs bearing No. 220/95 and 221/95 were registered in between complainant and accused party. The petitioners also sustained injuries and they were medically examined by the same Dr. i.e. Dr. B.L. Meena who has been examined by the prosecutrix in the present case as PW.3. He submits that the injury reports of the accused persons were not available when Dr. B.L. Meena was examined by prosecution on 10.10.2002 therefore, he could not be cross examined on this point on that day. He submits that it is true that the same doctor cannot become...
Tag this Judgment!Agrawal Kanya Pathshala Samiti (Shri) and anr. Vs. Gopal Krishan Sharm ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2997
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner Institution (for short 'Institution') appointed the respondent (for short 'employee') on the post of Senior Clerk in the grade of 1200-2050 vide order dated September 14, 1991 and placed him on probation for a period of one year. The period of probation was further extended upto September 15, 1993 vide order dated August 16, 1992. But prior to the completion of the probation period the Managing Committee of the Institution vide order dated August 14, 1993 relieved the employee from the services on the ground that his services were not found satisfactory. The employee assailed the order by filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal vide order dated September 24, 2003 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated August 17, 1993 and directed the Institution to reinstate the employee with all consequential benefits. The Institution in the instant writ petit...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Singh Panawat Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)WLC622
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Rajasthan is a big, peaceful and beautiful State. Tourism is a growing industry in this State and it's rich heritage in the form of old palaces, monuments desert with golden sand dunes, folk stories attract tourists from all over the country and globe and the latest trends indicate that one out of three international tourists who visit India, finds his destination or at-least a part of itinerary in Rajasthan. Jodhpur, Jaipur, Bikaner, Kota and other cities of the State have various such places which attract and render the tourists wondering how beautiful and peaceful this State is. Added to that is the sweet and respectful language, love and affection for one and all in the heart of people of this State which should really make anybody belonging to this State proud.2. In the back drop of increasing tourism with attending benefits to all persons connected with the said industry, hotels transport, guest houses, guides and all persons providing these facilities, infra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »