Rajasthan Court December 2006 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.
Vijay Laxmi @ Vijeta (Smt.) Vs. Judge, Family Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN411
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants. The applicants Sandeep Gehlot and Smt. Vijay Laxmi @ Vijeta who is daughter of Pukhraj Parihar and Smt. Anandi Devi were married, according to Hindu Rites on 17.02.2004 but as the marriage did not succeed both the parties resorted to seek dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce by agreement. They jointly moved an application to seek a decree to that affect before the Family Court, Jodhpur. The said application was accepted by the Family Court vide order dated 17.03.2006 and the decree for dissolution of marriage was passed.2. After passing of the decree, an application has been moved for making correction in the description of name of wife which was stated in the joint application as Smt. Vijeta W/o Sandeep Gehlot and Daughter of Pukhraj Parihar stated that the name of wife would be correctly described as Smt. Vijay Laxmi @ Vijeta W/o Sandeep Gehlot and D/o Pukhraj Parihar and to seek consequential amendment in decree. T...
Ramesh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN245
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Validity of Section 19 (gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short '1994 Act') is under challenge in this writ petition.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dangarwada defeating respondent Sauji Ram by a margin of 872 votes. The election of the petitioner was called in question by Sauji Ram by filing election petition on the ground that the petitioner was facing criminal case wherein he was charged for the offence under Section 325/149 IPC that carries sentence upto 7 years imprisonment, therefore, in view of Section 19(gg) the petitioner could not have been elected. The petitioner during the pendency of election petition moved an application praying therein that Section 19(gg) of 1994 Act was ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, reference be made to the High Court for deciding the validity of Section 19(gg) of 1994 Act. The application was d...
inder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN329
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in all these writ petitions is to the demand notices issued to the petitioners under provisions of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and rules made thereunder.2. Admittedly in sever matters the petitioners without filing the reply to the notices have rushed to the Court and in one matter reply to the notice was filed. Since the efficacious remedy of appeal, provided under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 has not been availed by the petitioners. I see no justification to interfere with the finding of the facts on the basis of which impugned notices were issued.3. In Union of India v. Baja Tempo Limited : 1997(94)ELT285(SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated as under:.The appropriate course for the assessee in each case was to reply to the show-cause notice enabling the authorities to record their findings of facts in each case and then if necessary, the matter should have been proceeded to the Tribunal ...
Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs. Judge, It and Lc and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR146]; 2007(1)WLN97
Mohammed Rafiq, J.1. Challenge in this case has been posed to the order dated 15.09.06 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur whereby two applications submitted by the petitioner-workman respectively on 19.02.2004 and 13.01.2005 have been rejected. In those applications, the petitioner prayed for placing transcription of certain tape recorded conversation of the witnesses on record and for recalling those witnesses. These witnesses were examined before the Court during the proceedings under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Learned Counsel argued that these witnesses in their conversation have admitted that they had earlier given affidavits under duress and coercion. In fact, affidavit of one of the witnesses namely Madharam has been filed with the writ petition in which he has given contrary evidence resiling from his earlier version. Learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore, argued that the Labour Court has committed serious error in not recalling those witneses to b...
i.C.A.R. and ors. Vs. Smt. Kalu Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN188
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The writ petition arises out of the order dated 27.01.2006 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 162/2005 (Smt. Kalu Devi widow of late Gomaji v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Ors.)3. The facts giving rise to this litigation were that late Shri Gomaji was initially appointed as Majdoor at Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur in the year 1973 and was granted temporary status on the said post. Said Gomaji served the department uninterruptedly until 01.03.1992. Said Gomaji died while in service holding the temporary status as Majdoor in the department. The Original Application was filed when the widow claimed the family pension but was denied to the present petitioner inter alia on the ground that late Shri Gomaji being in the temporary status his dependents were not entitled to family pension. It is contended that it is only after an incumbent is regularized that his depende...
Ganesh Lal Kharwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN434
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has found as a tact that the respondent-employer was deprived of hearing while proceeding ex-parte by the Labour Court and there was sufficient cause with the respondentemployer that it could not be present during the course of proceedings before the Labour Court and the application for setting aside the ex-parte was wrongly rejected. Consequently, the award dated 10.10.2001 passed ex-parte by the Labour Court has been set aside and the case had been remitted back to examine the matter on merit by the Labour Court.2. As a result of this finding, the writ petition filed by the workman for implementation of the award has also been dismissed. The fact that the respondent employer has been allowed to bring on record the material in support of his case about the status of the employee in the service and other issues sought to be raised particularly finding that the passing o...
Duldas and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN403
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the additional affidavit, in our opinion no further directions are required in the matter.2. The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation for the following relief:A writ, order of direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents restraining them from construction of the road in the Johar Paitan land as it described in Annexure-1 and ordering the respondents to restore the Johar Paitan to its original position.3. The said Johar Paitan is situated in village Shivpur Chak 4 E Badi admeasuring 10.800 hectares of land in Murabba Nos. 48 and 49. The petition was filed apprehending that a 'Pacca' road is being constructed through the said Johar Paitan and therefore, the aforesaid relief was claimed.4. By way of ad-interim relief by order dated 05.05.2005, the respondents were restrained from constructing 'Pacca' road at Johar Paitan as indicat...
Times Publishing House Ltd. and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR1029]; (2007)IIILLJ1068Raj
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Common prayer of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is as under:(a) to quash the order dated October 10, 1997 by the learned Appellate Tribunal and order dated October 4, 1997 passed by the learned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.(b) to declare that the establishment of the petitioner is an independent establishment and the petitioner-establishment is entitled to the infancy period of three years.(c) to declare that the establishment of Shree Vishal Printers Ltd. and Times Publishing House Ltd. are separate establishments and they cannot be clubbed with the establishment of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.(d) to restrain the respondent from: imposing any liability of P.F. contribution upon the petitioner-establishment of the employees of Shree Vishal Printers Ltd. and Times Publishing House Ltd.(e) to restrain the respondent from: demanding any PF contribution pursuant to the order dated October 4, 1997 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissi...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Lichhman Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN325
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The case comes up for orders on application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947.2. The respondent workman No. 1 was directed to be reinstated with 25% back wages by the award of the Labour Court which is subject matter of the challenge in these proceedings. The operation of the award having been stayed, the respondent-workman No. 1 has moved an application under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 filing an affidavit that the he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was directed to be reinstated.3. On submission of such application, under the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947, the consequences entitling the workman to secure the emoluments as per the last drawn emoluments becomes operative automatically unless the employer moves an application to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the workman was gainfully employed during that period and the Court passes an order to that effect. Though reply to the application u...
Ganpat Singh Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN113
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The short issue raised in this appeal is whether the petitioner who has been coaxed to seek pre-mature retirement before he has attained the age of superannuation and before he attained the age of voluntarily retirement under the Bank of Baroda (Employee's) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1995) entitles him to claim pensionary benefits on completing the qualifying service of ten years or more.3. The admitted position is that the petitioner-appellant has completed ten years of qualifying service and has not completed 15 years or more service and he has not attained the age of superannuation and he sought voluntarily retirement under the Bank of Baroda Employee Voluntary Retirement Scheme (herin after referred to as 'BOBEVRS'), 2001, which was offered by the Bank to its employees.4. The petitioner claims that the voluntary retirement Scheme carries all the benefits payable under t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »