Rajasthan Court May 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Bhoora Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3018
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.5.2005 in SBCWP No. 9/1996 allowing the writ petition of the respondent with a direction to the appellants herein to release the disability pension. The learned Single Judge observed that the case was squarely covered by the decision in the case of Chhatar Singh, SBCWP No. 1400/1997 decided on 3.1.2005 and accordingly set aside the order by which the respondent's claim of disability pension had been rejected. It may be stated here that Chhatar Singh's case was decided following the decision in the case of Tejpal Singh reported in 2005(2) CVR 1513.2. The background facts are as follows. On 29.5.1968, the respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army as an MT in the Supply Corps. According to him at the time of enrolment, he was found medically fit and placed him the medical category AYE. On 31.7.1971 he was re-mustered in the Armoured Corps where he was adjusted in the Operator/Driver Tra...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Laddu Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1102
G.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, who has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding therein that the enquiry held by the appellants-Union of India through the Western Railway against the respondent-workman was vitiated and therefore, an order was passed by the learned Member of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal that the appellants-Union of India and the respondent-workman will adduce evidence before the Tribunal, in order to arrive at a just conclusion, as to whether the termination of the respondent-workman was illegal or not.2. It appears that the respondent had been appointed in the Western Railway and after his appointment, he is alleged to have quit the job of his own after eight days of service. In this regard a Departmental Enquiry was conducted by the Western Railway against the respondent-workman, after which his services were terminated, the respondent-workman approached the Ce...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shardul Singh Through Lrs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj655
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Service upon the driver respondent No. 2 being formal is dispensed with.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award dated 31.1.2001 passed by the MACT, Jhunjhunu.3. This appeal is preferred by the appellant on the ground that the driver was not having valid license at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to make the payment of amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal.4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in catena of judgments is of the considered view that the Insurer has to first satisfy the award then it can recover the same from the responsible person. In view of ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, this issue is decided against the owner of the vehicle and in favour of the Insurer. The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award passed by the Claims Tribunal and then it can recover the same from the responsible person by initiating the proceedings before the executing Court.5...
Bhagwati Enterprises Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj233
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') the applicant seeks to appoint the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between applicant and non-applicants.2. Contextual facts depict that non-applicant No. 1-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') published notice inviting tenders (for short 'NIT') in the newspapers for appointment of 'sole licensee' for carrying business of transportation of general household and commercial items, parcels, couriers for its 49 depots through its entire fleet of 4000 buses plying on State and Inter-State routes. Pursuant to the NIT the applicant submitted its tender on January 25, 2005 which was adjudicated as responsive and highest and RSRTC accepted the offer vide letter dated January 31, 2005. In compliance of the acceptance order the applicant deposited required advance monthly premium. Thereafter vide work order dated February 22, 2005 the applicant w...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sire Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR104]; 2007(1)SLJ381(Raj)
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. It was claimed that applicant No. 1's son and applicant No. 2's brother Gayad Singh was the driver of vehicle RJ19 G6800, as employed by non-applicant No. 1. Because of blast in the said vehicle on 12.5.2001 the said driver died on 12.5.2001 itself. The applicant submitted claim petition before the Court of Workmen' s Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur, impleading the employer and the insurer of the said vehicle in the claim petition. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner passed the award in favour of the claimants on 29.12.1984. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount including the interest and penalty amount awarded in the award.2. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, in view of the various judgments, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay penalty amount because of the simple reason that the penalty amount is not the statutory liabili...
Abdul Khan and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2671
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The appellants 'Al' Abdul Khan, 'A2' Motan Khan, 'A3' Ali Gawar, 'A4' Hanif Khan, 'A5' Vali Mohd, 'A6' Nijawat Khan and 'A7' Beerbal Khan were put to trial on the charge of forming unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object committing murder of Kumbha Ram and causing injuries to other prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer by judgment dated 25th July, 2003 having found the prosecution case proved, held the appellants guilty of offence under Section 302/149,I. P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants have further been convicted and sentenced as follows:(a) Under Sections 325/149. I.P.C. Two years' R.I. and a fine(Except Motan Khan) of Rs. 500/- and in default, toundergo 3 months' R.I.(b) Under Section 325, I.P.C. Two years' R.I. and a fine of (Motan Khan) Rs. 500/- and in default, toundergo 3 months' ...
Sultan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj257
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a First Information Report was lodged with Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur at the instance of one Ramji Lal S/o. Narayan, who was then posted as Sub Inspector of Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur at 2.15 P.M. on 16th November, 1999. In the report, it was stated that an information was received about a quarrel between a group of persons in the area of police station Ramganj. On receiving this message, Shri Hulasa Ram, SHO sent complainant Ramjilal and Constable Sedu Ram to the site of the disturbance. It was stated that the SHO Hulasa Ram along with Head Constable Sultan Singh, Ramesh was & Ishwar Singh also followed them on foot. While the SHO Hulasa Ram was making efforts to pacify people, all of a sudden Head Constable Sultan Singh kicked a beggar sitting on the foot-path and overturned 'thelas' of some hawkers and scattered their goods and misbehaved with the persons who ...
In Re: Gillette India Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: [2007]75SCL347(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicant Gillette India Limited, filed this application under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to 'the Act of 1956') for a direction of the Court as to the method of convening, holding and conducting the meetings of the shareholders and creditors of the respective applicant companies, as to the notices and advertisement to be issued, for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving with or without modification, the scheme of arrangement proposed between Gillette India Limited and its shareholders.2. Gillette India Limited (hereinafter shall be referred as the 'applicant Company') is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 on February 9, 1984 vide Certificate of Incorporation No. 17-02890. The company was originally incorporated under the name of Indian Shaving Products Ltd. The name of the company was subsequently changed to Gillette India Limited.3. The position of aut...
Bsl Wulfing Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: (2008)12VST300(Raj)
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. These two writ petitions directed against the 1 similar nature orders dated April 10, 2006 (annexure 6 in the respective writ petitions) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, ('the Tax Board' hereafter) involving common questions of law and facts were heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common order.2. The petitioner has submitted two appeals under Section 85 of the Rajas-than Sales Tax Act, 1994 ('the Act', hereafter) before the Tax Board against the common order dated March 27, 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bhilwara, upholding the levy of penalty imposed under Section 64 of the Act in relation to two assessment years 1999-2000 and 1998-99, respectively. By the impugned orders dated April 10, 2006, the Division Bench of the Tax Board has though proceeded to admit the respective appeals but rejected stay applications submitted by the petitioner. The impugned orders dated April 10, 2006 are similar i...
Mala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2399
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the validity, property and correctness of the order dated 8.03.1996 passed by the Collector Cum District Magistrate externing the petitioner from the jurisdiction of the revenue district Churu as prescribed under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Gunda Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1975).2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act of 1975 have already been declared illegal by Division Bench, of this Court being ultra vines to Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India, therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable.3. Division Bench of this Court in Devendra Jain v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2002 (2) RLW 705 while considering the vires of Sub-section 3 of the Act of 1975 held as under:-Keeping the above principles in mind if we examine Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act we find that it...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »