Rajasthan Court February 2007 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.
Gram Panchayat Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR718]; RLW2007(3)Raj2059
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. Respondent-workman has filed an application Under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') wherein he has stated that he is out of employment and is not gainfully employed. The petitioner has filed reply to the said application and stated that after enquiry it was found that the respondent-workman is running a shop of sweets as well as tea stall in Gandhi Chowk, Manoharpur, Panchayat Samiti Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur and is earning Rs. 5000/- per month. The said reply is based on the report of Halka Patwari who has submitted his report on 15.7.2006 to the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Shahpura.2. Submission of Mr. Kashyap, counsel for the respondent- workman is that there is no proof of earning income of Rs. 5,000/- from the alleged sweet and tea shop. His further submission is that requirement of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') is that the workman 'should not be employed in any establishment du...
Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj554
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. By this application the petitioner, Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan, seeks recall of the order dated 10.3.2006 by which D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1342/1999 was dismissed as withdrawn, and for restoration of the writ petition.2. It was stated that the writ petition was withdrawn by the counsel bona fide on instruction from the office bearers of the petitioner Association which was given without consulting the members of the Association who reside out of Jaipur and were directly affected by the impugned notifications. It was submitted in course of hearing that there had been no change in the fact situation in which the writ petition could be withdrawn and if petition is not restored and decided on merit, the members of the Association would suffer great loss.3. Ordinarily, writ petitions withdrawn by counsel are not restored, but we looked into merit of the case so that the non-restoration of writ petition may not result in injustice, and accordingly...
Suo Moto Vs. Rajasthan University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN501
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Instant petition was registered on the reporting that the University Teacher's i.e. Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and teachers in other categories in different Universities in the State of Rajasthan namely Rajasthan University, Jaipur, Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur, Sukhadia University, Udaipur, Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Maharana Pratap University, Udaipur, who are entitle to pension and other retiral benefits on attaining age of superannuation, are likely to be in trouble because Pension Funds of the Universities are drastically squeezing. It is apprehended that very shortly the funds may go dry. The sword is hanging on thousands of distinguished teachers of the Universities.2. Having noticed the above report, by order dt. 02.05.2005, we reminded the State of Rajasthan of its Constitutional obligation in the field of Higher Education. In response to the notice, the Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning, Governm...
Jagdish NaraIn and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN244(1)
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the accused-petitioners against the judgment dt. 07.09.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Criminal Case No. 140/ 1988.2. Brief facts of the case that a private complaint was filed after 35 days of the incident for the offence under Sections 341, 325 and 323/34 IPC. It is alleged that the private complaint which has been filed is afterthought without complying the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. It is also alleged that the petitioners moved application dt. 03.08.1999 stating therein that before taking cognizance previous sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required to be taken.3. As per the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C., prosecution of Judges and public servants- (1) when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been com...
Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN300
Harbans Lal, J.1. The instant civil second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Section 100 read with Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred in short as 'C.P.C.') against the judgment and decree dt. 22.05.2001 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Baran in Civil Regular Appeal No. 54/2000 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree dt. 03.05.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Baran in Civil Suit No. 52/1992 has been set aside and the suit has beendismissed.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal and necessary for its disposal are that that the plaintiff-appellant is an authorized Category Contractor of the Irrigation Department of the State of Rajasthan. In response to the notice issued in this behalf, he submitted his tender on 30.11.1987 for Naveli Dam Project. After negotiation, his tender was accepted on 04.12.198...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›