Rajasthan Court September 2006 Judgments
Natthi Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ254; RLW2007(1)Raj187
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, learned Judicial Magistrate Weir, on a protest petition filed by the complainant against one of the co-accused (not charge-sheeted), took cognizance of the offence under Sections 307, 323 and 341, I. P. C. The order of learned Magistrate was set aside by the revisional Court on the ground that the Magistrate has no Jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been filed by the complainant.2. Contextual facts depict that on the basis of FIR lodged by the complainant Nathi Singh, the petitioner herein, the Police Station Bhusawar filed charge-sheet under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 307,1. P. C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Weir against accused Radhey Shyam, Subhash, Devi Singh and Hari Singh. Co-accused Khem Chand Meena, who was also named in the FIR, was not found involved ...
Tag this Judgment!Alwar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Funds C ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR310]; (2007)2LLJ347Raj; RLW2007(1)Raj110
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since questions of fact and law involved in these petitions are identical, I proceed to decide them by a common order.2. Almost in all the writ petitions the orders issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the appellate authority are under challenge. The facts raised in the writ petition No. 4718 of 2002 are taken into consideration. In this case Alwar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (in short the petitioner Bank) has challenged the orders of the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, and the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal dated September 20, 1999 and July 14, 2000. A prayer has also been made to refund the amount of Rs. 10,58,145/- deducted from the account of the petitioner Bank with the SBBJ, Alwar by way of attachment.3. The petitioner Bank is covered under the provisions of the Employees Funds and Misc. Provisions , 1952 (in short PF Act) and are paying regular contributions both employees as well as of the employers' share from th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Aksh Optifibre Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: [2009]89SCL329(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicant Aksh Optifibre Limited, filed this application under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1956') for a direction of the Court as to the method of convening, holding and conducting the meeting of the equity shareholders, unsecured creditors and secured creditors of the applicant company, 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 amalgamation between Aksh Broadband Limited (transferor Company) and Aksh Optifibre Limited (Transferee Company).2. That the applicant company was incorporated on 19-3-1986 under the name and style of Aksh India Private Limited with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana and was converted into a Public Limited Company on 13-3-1994 vide Special Resolution passed on 8-3-1994. Thereafter with effect from 7-2-2000 the transferee company sh...
Tag this Judgment!Board and Boards Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himalaya Paper (Machinery) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj1; RLW2006(4)Raj3255
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, with the averments that plaintiff company intended to install a Straw Board Mill at Alwar and for that purpose, it entered into correspondence with the defendant and ultimately the parties entered into a contract on 17th October, 1974. The plaintiff incorporated the terms and conditions of the contract in a letter and handed it over to the defendant. Pursuant to the contract, the plaintiff, at the first instance, paid Rs. One lac to the defendant through bank draft dated 6.11.1974. The plaintiff further paid Rs. One lac in two installments of Rs. 50,000/- each through bank drafts dated 1.7.1975 and 2.9.1975: In all, the plaintiff paid Rs. 2 lacs to the defendant as an advance against the cost of plant. As per the contract, the defendant company was required to supply machinery within 14 months and/or at the maximum, within 15 months from the date of contract. It is averred that...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Dal Mill Vs. Chunni Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC921; 2008ACJ805; [2007(112)FLR1199]; RLW2007(1)Raj52
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant has challenged the award dated 21.6.2004 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner whereby, he has awarded the compensation of Rs. 61,236/- alongwith an interest @ 6% upto 21.7.2004 and has further directed that thereafter the interest shall be paid @ 9% per annum. Moreover, he has imposed penalty of Rs. 12,274/- being 20% of the compensation amount.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-workman, Chunni Lal (henceforth to be referred to as 'the workman' in short) had filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner wherein he stated that he was employed as a worker in the appellant's Dal Mill Factory of the appellant. He was assigned the work of placing chana and moong dal into a machine. According to him, on 18.10.1994, while he was about to leave the work area, his leg was caught in the fan-belt. Consequently, he fell and while falling, his right hand was caught in the machine. Therefore, he suffered grievous injuries. Du...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Gopal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj24; RLW2007(1)Raj210; 2006(1)WLC7
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Sentinels of our past, repository of our culture and heritage, forts and palaces dot the hills and desert of Rajasthan One such fort is the fort of Chomu, a town situated thirty three kilometers from Jaipur. Scion of the royal family of Jaipur State, the Nathawats started the construction of the fort in the 17th century, and extensively enlarged it in the 18th century. The fort houses a palace complex and the fortress walls ('the Parkota') and a ditch ('the Khai'). The fort is the bone of contention between the petitioners and the State. Vide Notification dated 28-3-78, published on 8 4-1978 in the Rajasthan Gazette, the State had declared the fort to be a 'protected monument' under Section 3(4A) of the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Antiquities Act, 1961 (henceforth to be referred to as the State Act, for short). The petitioners are challenging the validity of the said notification. They are also challenging the letter dated 16-9-81, whereby the objec...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Diary Federation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3219
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the District Gazetteers Department of the State Government as UDC Stenographer Clerk on 1.11.60 and thereafter posted as Stenorgrapher Grade-III w.e.f. 1.4.61. The petitioner was thereafter promoted from time to time and when he was working as Stenographer Grade-I, his services were placed on deputation with the Rajasthan Cooperative Diary Federation (for short 'RCDF') and he joined on 1.6.81. The petitioner seeks voluntary retirement after completion of 25 years of service under Rule 244(1) of the R.S.R. while working on deputation in RCDF and the same was accepted vide order dated 29.1.86.2. The controversy in this writ petition is that the petitioner was given the benefit of leave encashment but as per the petitioner, the respondent has not paid the leave encashment for remaining 98 days, as claimed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Manju (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Addl. District and Session Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj40
Ashok Parihar, J.1. In a case of death, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Ajmer passed an award dated 1.7.2005, determining the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,58,000/- in favour of the petitioners claimants. The disbursement of the amount to the claimants, however, could be made only after the owner of the vehicle furnishes surety of the amount for recovery by the Insurance Company.2. The controversy has been decided by the Apex Court to the extent that Insurance Company is always free to recover the amount from the owner but in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Banwari Lal v. Gopi Ram 2005(2) DNJ (Raj.) 781, the conditions so imposed by the trial court appear to be wholly unreasonable. The claimants should not be made to suffer only because of the default of the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Company can always recover the amount from the owner in accordance with law but the claimants cannot be denied disbursement till any suret...
Tag this Judgment!Natho Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj41
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier also the petitioners preferred the writ petitions before this Court.2. Since in all these writ petition similar questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.3. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners are working as IV class on part time basis in the Office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bharatpur and till date they are continuing as part time employees.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Rout and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. decided on 20.11.97 and reported in AIR 1998 SC 1477, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that regularisation of service, subsequent termination on ground that initial appointments were irregular, appellants had served department initially even without getting any salary for a long time, they are not guilty of any fraud or...
Tag this Judgment!Leela Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj137
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This is claimants appeal seeking enhancement over the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in its award dated 26.4.1993 made in Claim Case No. 100/1990 in the sum of Rs. 92,905/- inclusive of interest on account of accidental death of Satyanarain, 30 years in age, husband of appellant No. 1, son of appellant No. 2 and father of appellant Nos. 3 to 5. Only the question of quantum of compensation being involved in this appeal, a brief reference t the background facts would suffice.2. The accident in question occurred on 1.1.1990 at about 5.00 P.M. near Dangiyawas Petrol Pump on Jodhpur to Bilara Road when the victim Satyanarain standing on the kuchcha road was hit by an Ambassador Car bearing number 82B-22902 (1530) belonging to non-applicant No. 1 Union of India and driven by non-applicant No. 2 Mangu Ram. Satyanarain sustained several injuries and was admitted in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur where he breathed his las...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »