Rajasthan Court January 2008 Judgments
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and anr. Vs. Shyochand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN309
Guman Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 03.01.2006 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Jhunjhunu, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,91,760/- was awarded to the respondent claimant Shyochand with interest @ 12% from the date of accident that is to say on 07.06.2000 on account of the injury sustained due to electric shock while he was working as Helper Gr. II under the appellants on 33 KV GSS, Malsisar on 07.06.2000 whereby he sustained fracture in 7 ribs, his right hand was rendered useless, adversely affecting his mind and causing deficiencies of blood and thereby causing physical disability and had to take voluntary retirement as his working capacity was reduced by 75% as per the medical certificate. Learned Counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned findings of the Commissioner on the ground that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the employee claimant and as such the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujrat State Fertilizer and Chemical Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN497
Guman Singh, J.1. These appeals, under Section 23 of Railways Claims Trjbunal Act, 1987, (for short the 'Act'), have been preferred by the appellant Gujrat State Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd., against the orders dt. 24.01.2003 (Appeal Nos. 1106/03, 1102/03, 1103/03 and 1105/03), and Order dt. 13.12.2002 (Appeal No. 880/2003) passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the claim applications of the appellant were dismissed. Since similar factual and legal position is involved in these appeals, the same are being heard together and disposed of by common judgment.2. Briefly stated the common facts in these Appeals are that the appellant M/s. Gujrat State Fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd. booked certain consignments from GSFC Siding, Moti Khavdi to Sri Ganganagar, vide Railway Receipts as mentioned in the respective appeals. The consignments were dispatched by the respondent railway administration from applicant's Siding in a rake to the destination. The consignmen...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ganganagar Fertilizer Corpn. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Raj)140
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an assessee's appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 18-3-1999 (Annex. 9). The appeal was admitted on 23-7-2001, by framing following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the appellant firm has taken a stand that 9 godowns in question have been given to the partners of the firm in lieu of their share profit sharing ratio in profit, the taxability of the firm in respect of income from house property from godowns in question could be subject to tax without examining the question of ownership vis-a-vis entitlement to receive rents ?3. From the look at the impugned order dated 18-3-1999, (Annex. 9), it transpires that thereby two appeals were decided, being Appeal Nos. 471 and 472/Jp/1983, which related to the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 respectively.This order was passed consequent upon the opinion given by this Court, in reference, being D.B. IT Ref. No. 33 of 1985 vide ju...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Mateshwari Maa Roadways Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN41
Govind Mathur, J.1. By executing an agreement the appellant carrier provided tank trucks to the respondent Oil Company to transport petroleum products. The Chief Operating Manager of the Oil Company under an order dt. 09.05.2007 blacklisted/banned four tank trucks of the carrier along with their crew from carrying petroleum products, being found tank truck No. RJ- 27-G-1059 involved in malpractice.2. By submitting an application as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') the appellant carrier sought an interim injunction for staying blacklisting and all other consequence thereto.3. To substantiate the relief as claimed under the application referred above it was contended that as per the guidelines prescribed under Annexure- 1 appended to the agreement, no tank truck or its crew could have been blacklisted without holding an investigation as per the procedure prescribed by the company, however, learned...
Tag this Judgment!Lachha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN192
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the respondent State may be directed to make compliance of the award passed in favour of the petitioners by Labour Court dt. 30.09.2003. The appropriate Government made a reference to the Labour Court on the question whether the petitioner workmen, who were working as part time cook in a hostel, Social Welfare Department are entitled to regularisation and benefit of regular pay scale. The reference was answered in affirmative.3. The award of the Labour Court dt. 30.09.2003 was challenged by the department before the learned Single Judge of this Court by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No. 1424/2004 and 1425/2004, which were dismissed vide order dt. 16.12.2004 and 02.11.2004 respectively. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in case of Smt. Chandana Devi (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1424/2004) was challenged by the State before the Divis...
Tag this Judgment!Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Judge, In ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN74
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the ex parte award dt. 15.02.2004 and the order dt. 18.04.2006, whereby application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award was rejected.3. The application for setting aside of the ex parte award was based on the premise that original claim was filed against Sukhadia University, Udaipur and Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and subsequently when Maharana Pratap Agriculture University, Udaipur was established, it was added as respondent No. 3 before the Labout Court.4. When the notice of the claim petition was received by the petitioner- University, it authorised the Registrar of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner to also contest the case on their behalf and a communication dt. 20.06.2000 to this effect was written to him by Deputy Secretary of the Government. A copy of the communication dt. 20.06.2000 has been placed on record which ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Smt.) Hemlata Saraswat Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1072]; (2008)IIILLJ423Raj; RLW2008(2)Raj1397; 2009(1)SLJ424(Raj)
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the communication dated 27.04.2006 (Annex.3) denying her maternity leave on the ground that she is working as Medical Officer on consolidated salary and there is no provision in the Rules for granting her maternity leave. 2. The petitioner has averred that on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, she came to be appointed on the post of Medical Officer on a consolidated salary of Rs. 8,000/ per month with issuance of appointment order on 15.09.2003 (Annex.1) putting her engagement on contract basis; that accepting the offer of appointment, she joined services and presently is posted at Primary Health Centre, Kantalia, Sojat Road, Pali (Rajasthan). According to the petitioner, she proceeded on medical leave on 29.08.2005 by submitting a leave application; and, after delivering a male child, resumed duties on 11.01.2006 with fitness certificate. 3. The petitioner has stated her grievance in ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahima Real Estate (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commiss ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Raj)62
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. The short controversy raised in the present writ petition is that though the petitioner submitted his case for settlement before the Settlement Commission, however, the matter has not yet been finally decided/settled and if proceedings are not completed by 31st March, 2008, it will abate.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that if direction is given by this Court to decide/settle the matter before 31st March, 2008 then the said direction would be conveyed to the Settlement Commission for its compliance. It is otherwise brought to the notice of this Court that in view of the amendment made in the Act, if settlement proceedings are not concluded, an order is not passed on or before 31st March, 2008 the matter will abate.3. In view of the facts narrated above, it is directed to the Settlement Commission to settle/decide the matter of the petitioner positively on or before 31st March, 2008.4. The writ petition is disposed of in view of the directions aforesaid...
Tag this Judgment!Bheru Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1453
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Under challenge in this petition is the order dated 21.1.95 whereby Asstt. Devisthan Commissioner, Bikaner directed initiation of inquiry under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner in relation to temple in question. This order was earlier challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Devasthan Commissioner at Udaipur who by his order dated 18.11.96 dismissed the same as premature, which is also under challenge in this writ petition.2. I have heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, learned Govt. counsel appearing for the respondent State and Mr. A.K. Khatri learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 Ganesh Ram.3. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order sheet dated 13.1.95 directing initiation of inquiry in regarding temple of Mataji situated at Rajdesar at Tehsil Ratangarh district Churu could not have been legally pass...
Tag this Judgment!Chheeta Ram @ Sita Ram Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2104
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. None for the parties. Instant special appeal has been filed against the order dated December 22, 95 of the learned Single Judge which reads as under:Heard.No case is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.2. Their Lordships Of the Supreme Court in MP. Mittal v. State of Haryana : [1985]1SCR940 issued direction which are beneficial to the general administration of justice as under (Para 6):Before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to point out that it would be beneficial to the general administration of justice if in certain cases where the High Court disposes of a writ petition in limine it does so by an order incorporating the reasons for such order. Where a case is admitted to final hearing, the judgment of the High Court disposing of the appeal almost invariably set forth the reasons for its decision. We think it desirable that even when a writ petition is dismissed in limine the High Court should set out its reasons, however briefly, for doing...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »