Rajasthan Court March 2008 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.
Pukhraj Shishodia Murlidhar and Party and Vs. the State of Rajasthan a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2405
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Liquor or alcohol, has many stories and comments. Drinkers' paradise and tee-totallers' taboo, this commodity, has many social evils attached to it. It is not only a very attractive source of Revenue for State Government through Excise Department, but large auction bids in yearly contracts lifted by liquor barons and contractors makes several eyes wide open. It has certainly compelled the State Government to shift its policy decisions of giving away contracts to fetch maximum exclusive privilege price every year. These days each shop is separately auctioned in State of Rajasthan and there is no upper limit on the total number of shops in a city or town. This has resulted in mushroom growth of liquor shops and more often than not public outcry, disputes and police cases are reported in media on account of opening of wine shops near schools, hospitals, temples and other residential areas.2. The State Government does not appear to have undertaken any impact assessment...
Vikas Dangayach Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Raj)63
ORDERP.S. Asopa, J.1. In many of the above-mentioned cases notices were issued and after service the respondent Department has filed reply also. With the consent of the parties the cases were heard finally along with the fresh similar cases. In fresh cases the copy of writ petition was given to the counsel for the respondent Department and since common question of law based on similar facts are involved, therefore, all the cases have been heard and are being decided together.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their cases are pending before the ITSC which are required to be decided by 31st March, 2008 as per Section 245D(4A)(i) r/w Section 245HA(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 but the same have not been decided so far and in case the same are further not decided by 31st March, 2008, then the same shall abate by operation of law.3. The facts in brief of the cases are that in all the petitions, applications have been filed by the petitioners before the Settlement Commission as per Chapte...
Surendra Kumar Vyas Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1621
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5/7/2000 and directing the respondents to fix him in the pay scale of UDC and few other ancillary reliefs.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 27/9/1977 (Annex. l) as weaving helper in the Rajasthan Small Scale Industries Corporation - respondent No. 2 on consolidated wages @ 150/- pm. Later on, the said wages were increased from 150/- to 350/- in the year 1980, from 350/- to 500/- on 29/3/1982 then from 500/- to 750/-and at last from 27/4/1991 Rs. 1200/- was allowed as consolidated wages to the petitioner.3. When the services of the petitioner were not regularised though similarly situated persons were granted benefit of regularisation and pay scale, the petitioner directly preferred SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court and raised the plea that he has completed more than 18 years of service and similarly situated persons, who were appo...
Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Harsh Rathore
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2330
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act') for appointment of independent arbitrator.2. The arbitration agreement relied upon in this application is with reference to Memorandum of Understanding (for short 'MOU') dated January 31, 2005 and the Collaboration Agreement dated March 9, 2005 entered into between the parties. Under the MOU dated January 31, 2005 entered into between the respondent Harsh Rathore, referred to as 'the first party' in the MOU and the applicant M/s. Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd., referred to as 'the Builder Company' in the MOU. It was agreed that the respondent Harsh Rathore on the terms and conditions agreed upon would hand over/surrender his land admeasuring 7913 sq. Yds. bearing plot No. 6, forming part of Khasra No. 50, situated at Sodala Civil Lines, Jaipur, popularly known as 'Rathore Nursery' to the applicant for developing and constructing a commercial complex and that ...
Vayapar Mandal Samiti Mansarovar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj278
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition styled as public interest litigation has been filed at the instance of Vyapar Mandal Samiti, Mansarovar, through its President Mahendra Joshi.2. Challenge has been posed to the notice (Annexure-4) issued by Rajasthan Housing Board for auction of the land in dispute situated in Sector 4 of Mansarovar Colony of Jaipur.3. According to the petitioner, this land was originally reserved for senior higher secondary school and is now being sought to be auctioned without following the procedure for change of its land use for the purpose of its commercial use.4. Mr. Madhav Mitra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the plot in dispute opens on New Sanganer Road and is surrounded by three schools, one of which is running for last almost 8 years. The petitioner Samiti came to know that the respondents wanted to use the land in question for commercial purpose, whereas the said land should have been used for setting up market yard for grains...
Saravan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR696]
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. In the instant case the petitioner is seeking benefit of pension. According to him, he had served the Indian Army from 12.2.1942 to 10.4.1946. But thereafter, he was discharged from the services on account of becoming medically unfit due to injuries sustained by him during service. Since he was medically boarded out, hence, he was entitled to get disability pension. During service he had received numbers of medals and stars. The disability was occurred during service, while he was doing parade. His left knee and left elbow were injured. He was taken to the Military Hospital for treatment by the Army Personnel viz. Mr. Bhabhuti (No. 2931625), Mr. Mathalli S/o Mr. Chiman Gurjar, the Naik (No. 23245). Both were of 8th Unit of Punjab Regiment. In support of this fact the petitioner has enclosed affidavits of these two persons. The petitioner has further submitted that he was medically treated for about 3 months in Military Hospital, Lahore. The percentage of dis...
Nand Kishore Vs. Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1940
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that me impugned order dated June 6, 1995 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Labour Court Kota way kindly be quashed and set aside. He further prayed for any other appropriate order or direction in his favour.2. The case as set up by the petitioner in short is that he through his Union raised an Industrial Disputes in the matter of his illegal termination of services. The State Government vide its notification dated 30.6.1990 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kota.3. According to the petitioner he was engaged on muster roll basis on 26.9.1997 under respondent No. 2. He was posted at Sultanpur South Colony on Machine No. CE-6 Elevotive for levelling the earth etc. He was helper on that Machine. He was working under Field Machinery Sub-Division-19. Thereafter he was transferred in Sub-Division-18. He worked for 139 days in Sub- Division-19 and 99 days in Sub-Division-18. It is also...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Judge, Labour Court No. 2 and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2298
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the award dated 6:7.2000 passed by respondent No. 1 in LCR No. 535/1998, Goverdhan v. Manager, Vidhayak Niwas, and the claim petition filed by respondent No. 2 be dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that respondent No. 2 was engaged on daily wages as labour on 1.7.1988, He stopped coming to work from 6.6,95. He raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the dispute, to respondent No. 1 for adjudication. He submitted a statement of claim before respondent No. 1 in which it was submitted that the respondent therein engaged him on the post of 'farrash' from 1.7.78 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 6.6.85, as provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') were not complied with as no retrenchment compensation was paid. He further stated in the statement of claim that no seniority list was pr...
Vasudev Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2340
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent No. 2 to transfer the petitioner from Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut prasaran Nigam Limited, Jaipur to Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur (for short 'JWNL').2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he had initially entered in the services of Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short 'the RSEB') on 14.3.1977 on the post of Junior Engineer (I). He was further promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 3.3.1982 in the RSEB. The State Government decided to abolish RSEB and it divided into 5 Public Sector Companies Under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act of 1999. The division of erstwhile RSEB into 5 companies took place after issuance of the Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2000 (for short 'the Scheme 2000') and the aforesaid scheme was published in the gazette notification on 19.7.2000. As per Rul...
Rajeev Tiwari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2334
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Core question emerges for consideration in this intra court appeal is as to whether the appellant herein had any legal right for being appointed against the post of Lab. Assistant (Radio and Television) advertised by the respondent District Education Officer (Boys) Dholpur (Rajasthan).2. Contextual facts, which are not in dispute, depict that an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Lab. Assistant (Radio and Television). The appellant applied and selected by the Selection Committee headed by the District Education officer. The Select List was published on the Notice Board on March 15, 1995. The appellant however was not offered any appointment. He filed writ petition questioning his non appointment. Learned Single Judge vide order dated October 28, 1998 dismissed the writ petition.3. The appellant is, thus, before us.4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.5. In the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents the only reason fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »