Rajasthan Court August 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.
Mani Lal Kalal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2729; 2005(4)WLC502
N.N. Mathur, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The learned Single Judge has refused to restore the writ petition. We have perused the application for restoration of the writ petition. We are satisfied that there existed sufficient reasons which prevented the learned Counsel for the appellant to appear before the Court when the case was called. We have observed in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jodhpur v. Modi Threat Mills, Jodhpur that refusal to restore an appeal is bound to result in meritorious matter being thrown out and the cause of justice will be defeated. In another matter, whereby, a division Bench of this Court refused to condone the delay in filing the application for condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court condoned the delay and restored the matter. The case has been remitted to this Court for decision on merit, for the convenience, the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Civil appeal No. 872/04 (Stat...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhagan Lal Joshi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR272]; 2005(4)WLC786
R.P. Vyas, J.1. Heard at admission stage.2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the judgment and award dt. 14.2.2003 Annex. 5 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara may be quashed and set aside.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. l - workman raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. However, the said conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide notification dtd. 21.4.2001 referred the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara.4. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The respondent No. l workman submitted statement of claim alleging, inter alia, that he was engaged as daily wage employee on 19.6.1997. His services were terminated from 16.3.2000 illegality, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to a...
Sanjay Kulshrestha Vs. Rajasthan Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Finan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj224
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:(i) the order dated September 2, 1998 (Ann.1) and Award dated October 29, 1997 (Ann.3) passed by Arbitrator may kindly be set aside and quashed.(ii) The respondent Corporation may be directed to treat petitioner as senior in comparison to respondent No. 3 Abdul Wahid on the post of Stenographer Grade-II and on the post of Personal Assistant.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner and the respondent Abdul Wahid both were initially appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade II. A provisional seniority list was prepared on the basis of total marks obtained by a candidate in the entire process of examination. In that list name of petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 1 whereas name of Abdul Wahid was at No. 7. Petitioner had secured 85 marks in the Stenography Written Examination whereas Abdul Wahid obtained only 37.5 marks. In interview however Abdul Wahid secured 41 marks while petitioner was awa...
Kunal Gaurav Saxena Vs. Anil Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ1268; 2006WLC(Raj)UC83
Vineet Kothari, J.1. The aforesaid cross-appeals--one by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the other by the insurance company seeking reduction of the awarded amount and interest awarded thereon is usual tug of war in such cases which come before this court in a stream.2. Kunal Gaurav Saxena, a young boy of 11 years of age met with an unfortunate accident on 12.9.1990 at about 6.45 p.m. when he was riding his bicycle near GRP office near Roadways Bus Depot. Ajmer when truck trailer No. RNW 8125 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit Kunal Gaurav and one of the tyres of the truck crushed his middle part, resulting in complete paralysis of lower part of his body. The claimant filed application before the Tribunal for claim to the extent of Rs. 92,50,000.3. Claims Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 4.6.1993 while deciding Claim Case No. 74 of 1991 awarded a sum of Rs. 7,02,793 under three heads in favour of the claimant-in...
Bhola Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2723; 2005(4)WLC513
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material/case diary made available to me during the arguments of the case.2. This is third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The first bail application was dismissed by this Court on the basis of statement of learned Public Prosecutor to the effect that as per details available in the case diary, four other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. The second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh bail application before the trial Court.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that quantity of contraband article recovered in the present matter is lesser than the small quantity as mentioned in the notification issued under Section 2 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the same is punishable with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months whereas the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a term ...
Shambhu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR951]; RLW2006(2)Raj990
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 1.11.2000 (Annex.-1) may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner may be ordered to be reinstated.2. Brief facts of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Beldar in PHED, Salumber since 6.3.1991 and from 28.6.1997 he was declared Semi-Permanent in pay-scale of Rs. 800-1250/-.3. It has also been averred in the writ petition that a criminal case was lodged on 13.5.1983 against the petitioner and two others for the offence under Sections 323 and 333 IPC, in which after trial petitioner alongwith co-accused was convicted by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur vide judgment dated 21.1.1984. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 2.3.2000 and on dismissal of appeal the petitioner was sent to jail for serving out the sentence. On his conviction the service of the petitioner were terminated vide-order dated 1....
In Re: Modern Syntex (India) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: [2005]64SCL520(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This is an application under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956') for directions to convene a meeting of the secured creditors of the Modern Syntex (India) Limited having its registered office at A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the applicant company') for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the scheme of compromise proposed to be made between the applicant-company and its secured creditors.2. The details of the present authorized and issued, subscribed and paid-up capital of the applicant-company have been given in para No. 3 of the application.3. The main objects of the applicant-company have been briefly set out in para No. 4 of the application and the applicant-company has also enclosed its Memorandum and Articles of Association along with the application as Annexure-C.4. The details of the incorporation, business activities and divis...
Budh Ram Vs. Shashi Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj212
Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant appellant, who sustained injuries in a road accident which occurred on 5.8.1998, for enhancement of the compensation against the award dated 10.10.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapurcity in MAC No. 116/1998 whereby the compensation to the tune of Rs. 77,460/- has been awarded in favour of the appellant-claimant.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the award passed by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that a very meagre amount of Rs. 60,000/- under the head of mental agony, permanent disability and loss of earning has been awarded by the Tribunal while the appellant-claimant sustained many serious injuries and suffered 22.6% permanent disability. It is also contended that claimant-appellant remained hospitalized for about the months and was operated thrice but nothing has been awarded under the head of other expenses incurred during the hospitalizati...
Official Liquidator of Unikol Bottlers Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Arizo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: [2006]67SCL348(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-Official Liquidator and perused the application.2. Application is under Section 457(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Official Liquidator of M/s. Unikol Bottlers Limited (in liquidation) by Judge's summons and prayar has been made therein for issuance of the directions under the section aforesaid. Despite of the notice of the application duly served upon the respondent, none is present on its behalf.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, I am satisfied that the application deserves acceptance and accordingly, the same is allowed.4. The Official Liquidator shall have the powers with the sanction of the Court to settle the list of creditors/contributories and fix the date/dates for the settlement of 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 exercise all or a...
Official Liquidator of Amfort Agro Finance Ltd. Vs. Umed Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: [2006]68SCL481(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The applicant, in this application under Sections 446 and 447 of the Companies Act, 1956, has prayed for grant of following relief :(i) The Respondent(s) may be summoned and may be examined under Section 477 of the Companies Act of 1956 on oath in order to fix up the liability with regard to the aforesaid amount and order for payment of Rs. 29,900 (Rupees twenty nine thousand nine hundred only), as on 10-11 -1999 plus further interest @ 12 per cent on the amount thereafter till the date of payment may be passed in favour of the applicant Petitioner and the Respondents may be held liable for payment jointly and severally,(ii) In the alternative the application may kindly be tried under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and a decree for the outstanding amount may be passed.(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the Applicant. 2. The res...