Rajasthan Court March 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.
Suraj Prakash Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1994
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The unsuccessful workman is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge passed on November 20, 1995 dismissing his writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 6th of November, 1992 passed by the Labour Court, Kota.2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellant and the respondent No. 2 as 'workman' and 'employer' respectively. On 19th September, 1986, the workman in the night at about 11.05 p.m. after working in the shift, was coming out of the factory. At that time, he initially declined to give search to the watchman. That created some suspicion in the mind of watchman. The workman was searched and from his shoes, two copper pieces weighing about 500 grams were found. The First Information Report relating to this incident was lodged by the employer through his Security Officer on 19th September, 1986 itself at Udyog Nagar, Police Station. The workman was immediately suspended and served with ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (the) Vs. Smt. Rekha and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ2614; RLW2007(3)Raj2536
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'/' the Act of 1988' hereafter) has been preferred by the insurer of a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ19 7M 0131 being aggrieved of the award dated 20.03.2006 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4], Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 281/2005.2. By the award impugned, the Tribunal has allowed the claim application under Section 163A of the Act made by the wife, minor child and mother of the vehicular accident victim Praveen Solanki (about 33 years); and has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,36,200/- while assessing pecuniary loss at Rs. 4,08,000/-, and allowing treatment expenditure at Rs. 1,200/- and other components of general damages including mental agony, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs. 27,000/-. The insurer essentially seeks to question the very competence of the claim application for the...
Narendra Pathak Vs. Dr. B. Sharda and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2069
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. This petition challenges the Order dated 16.4.1999, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur whereby the learned Judge had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. In the revision petition the petitioner had challenged the Order dated 10.11.1998, whereby the Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur (North) had accepted the negative Final Report filed by the police and had rejected the petitioner's protest petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.4.1996, the petitioner's only son, Hitesh came down with fever and was suffering from stomachache. The petitioner took his son to the respondent No. 1. Dr. B. Sharda, for treatment. It was discovered that Harish was suffering from viral hepatitis. On 13.4.1996, Hitesh underwent some diagnostic tests. On 16.4.1996, Hitesh was admitted to the hospital. On 19.4.1996, Hitesh was discharged from the hospital. According to the respondent No. 1, Hitesh was normal, although his S.G...
Rajendra Singh Vs. Nishan Singh Pisar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2281
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner/defendant is aggrieved against the order dated 9.5.2006 by which the trial court decided issue No. 5A about limitation against the petitioner and held that the respondent/plaintiff's suit is within the period of limitation.3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs against the defendant/petitioner after paying court fees of Rs. 50,065/- which is provided for ordinary civil suit for compensation. The plaintiff/ non-petitioner in the suit alleged that on 24.2.2000 at about 8:30 PM, the defendant/petitioner with an intention to kill the plaintiff fired 3 shots upon the plaintiff causing injury to the plaintiff for which FIR was lodged on 24.2.2000 under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, challan was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted by Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track), Hanumangarh ...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Shilpa and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1806; RLW2007(3)Raj2512
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988V'the new Act') has been preferred by the insurer of the vehicle involved in accident against the award dated 30.01.1993 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balotra in Claim Case No. 1/1990 essentially contending on its limited liability; and also questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in the sum of Rs. 5,25,000/-, to the wife and parents of 22 years' old accident victim Sanjay Kumar alias Khem Chand.2. Brief facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this appeal are that on 24.07.1989 at about 4.30 p.m., the victim Sanjay Kumar with his wife Smt. Shilpa (claimant No. 1), his friend Mahendra Kumar, and friend's wife Smt. Rekha while travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No. RJW 7281 and returning back from their pilgrimage to Nakoda met with the accident near Parasdham on Balotra-Nakoda route for head-on collision of the ...
Lalit Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR713]; RLW2007(4)Raj3382; 2008(2)SLJ43(Raj)
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Aggrieved by the order Annex. 1 dated 24.11.2004 passed by Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, holding therein that the Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the reasons that the workman has not worked for 240 days and left the work on his own and the dispute has been raised after a lapse of 20 years without any justification for the long delay, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed under the respondents No. 3 and 4 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short 'the BSNL' hereinafter) in the month of December, 1983 as daily wages labourer and continued to serve the respondent BSNL till 03.10.1984 when his services were terminated. The petitioner requested the Appropriate Govt. of India to make a reference to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal for...
Riico Ltd. and ors. Vs. Manoj Ajmera and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR388(Raj); RLW2008(1)Raj473
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by learned District Judge dated 6.11.2000 under Section 9 and 11 of the Arbitration and Concili- ation Act, 1996 as nominee of the Chief Justice appointing Shri G.L. Goyal, retired Chief Engineer, PWD as the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 in regard to execution of contract for commissioning of Water Supply Scheme at Matsya Industrial Area (South Extension), Alwar.2. Bone of contention between the parties is that as per the agreement between the parties the work was to be commenced from 15.12.1997 and to be completed upto 25.6.1998. While according to the Contractor he could not complete the work because the RIICO did not fulfill many of the requirements in time. The RIICO has however contested the matter by asserting that the Contractor did not have adequate infrastructure and workforce of experts and thus failed to complete the work on time. The learned District...
inani Securities and Investment Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN196
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. The petitioner registered firm approached respondent No. 2 under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter, 'the Act') claiming registration for non-banking financial institution. The said application has been rejected vide order of the respondent No. 2 dt. 31.05.2000 (Annex.-2 to the writ petition) by the competent authority holding that, 'the applicant company has not informed the Bank within the said period about its fulfillment of the required amount of NOF. The applicant company has also not applied for extension of time to fulfill such requirement as contemplated under Sub-section (3) of Section 45- IA. Therefore, it is clear that though, three years period was available to the company, the company has failed to comply with the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 45-IA of the Act ibid. Hence, the applicant company is disqualified under Section 45-IA of the Act to carry on the business of non-banking financial institution for ...
Hari Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN86
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that vide order dt. 26.02.2004 (Annex.-4) after taking all grounds, evidence and considering report for better irrigation facility, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Suratgarh Branch, Division Office, Sri Vijayangar, Distt. Sriganganagar has sanctioned additional Naka on the mid point of Killa Nos. 2 and 3 after adopting whole legal process. Against the said order, respondent No. 5 Raja Ram being power of attorney holder of Smt. Snesta Devi D/o Late Shri Mohan Lal, whose agriculture field situated in said area, filed an appeal on 16.07.2004 and the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Suratgarh Branch, Division Office, Sri Vijaynagar, Distt. Sriganganagar.3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Ru...
Jambu Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN127
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed that respondent No. 3 may be restrained from starting construction and functioning of retail out-let dealership and letter of intent issued in favour of respondent No. 3 may be cancelled.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner set out the case that in pursuance of the advertisment issued by the Indian Oil Corporation on 20.02.2004 for issuing retail out-let dealership the petitioner applied with all papers and filed his application with the respondent authorities. He was called for interview and, ultimately, the selection committee allotted dealership to respondent No. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that upon enquiry by the petitioner from the office of the Oil India Corporation it came to his knowledge that the required land under stipulation set down by the department was 35 35 mtrs on the road-side but the respondent No. 3 did not have land as per the stipulation, therefore, he did not fulfill the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »