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.
idrish Khan and ors. Vs. Prahladi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj135
ORDERPrem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20-2-2008 whereby the Distt. Judge, Bharatpur before whom the election petition was filed by the respondent No. 1, while transferring the petition to the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 1, Bharatpur passed order of maintaining status quo by the parties.2. Facts in brief of the case are that in the month of February, 2005, election was held to the post of Member, Panchayat Samiti Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur in which all the petitioners were elected from their respective Wards by good margin of votes. The respondent No. 1 who was loser filed an eletion petition against the petitioners under Section 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act with the averments that the petitioners were not eligible as Ward Member of the Panchayat Samiti because they have more than two children after the cut-off date 27-11-1985, therefore, the petitioners become disqualified. The respondent No. 1 filed a stay petition under...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunita Bhargava and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ1756
K.S. Rathore, J.1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (non-claimant) has preferred this misc. appeal challenging the award passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim Petition No. 361 of 2004 (No. 2051 of 2002) by which the learned Judge has awarded compensation of Rs. 13,56,500 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant insurance company on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned court below is excessive and same cannot be said to be just and reasonable as per provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. It is also contended that as per salary certificate, Exh. 13, issued by Principal of Rajkiya Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pawta, Jaipur, the deceased Praveen Bhar-gava was employed as Laboratory Assistant and drawing salary of Rs. 9,076 per month, from which a sum of Rs. 1,160 was deducted towards G.P.F., Rs. 400 towards State insurance and Rs. 60 for R.P.M.F., etc. Thus, t...
Mohan Lal Prajapat Vs. Jodhpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2841
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned notices dated 21.5.1988 (Annexure-5) and 15.4.1994 (Anhexure-7) passed by Managing Director of the respondent Bank. Further, it is prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to allow all annual increments to the petitioner since 1982 and promotions for which the petitioner was entitled with all consequential benefits. It is also prayed that the suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 28.5.1985 may kindly be declared illegal and the petitioner may kindly be treated to be in continuous service of the respondent Bank with full salary and all other ancillary benefits.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 1996 narrating the facts that he is employee of Jodhpur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.3. The petitioner was appointed as clerk in the respondent Ban...
Mansha Ram and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN113
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dt. 03.10.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioners under Section 230 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (In short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter) against order dt. 03.10.2005 passed by the Allotting Authority cum Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Chhatargarh (Bikaner) allotting 19 bighas uncommand land comprising Murabba No. 99/61 Chak No. 10-500 D.O.D.D.R. in favour of respondent No. 4 herein, has been rejected.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners father late Shri Maloo Ram's Khatedari land was acquired by the State Government for Mahajan field Firing Range, therefore, in lieu of the land acquired, he was allotted 50 bighas land comprising Khasra No. 169 and 13 bighas 11 biswas land comprising khasra No. 186 of village Rajiasar, tehsil Loonkarsar, district Bikaner vide order dt. 31.05.1986 passed by the Allotting Authority cum Sub ...
Ganesh Singh and Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj86
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsels.2. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners inter alia challenging the removal of Mr. Roop Narayan Bhargava from the post of Chief Executive Officer of the Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Bikaner.3. The said Bank has been constituted and works under the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 a central enactment of Parliament. I have heard rival contentions at some length on the objections as to the maintainability of the writ petitions and the claim of the petitioners that the meeting in question dated, 6.12.2005 wherein resolution was taken by the persons present in the said meeting, who, according to the petitioners, were disqualified and were not entitled to participate in the said meeting, has been challenged in the present writ petitions.4. This Court is of the opinion that all these questions relating to the legality and validity of resolution dated 6.12.2005 for removal of the said person Mr. Ro...
Murari Lal Khandelwal Vs. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj108
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act') the applicant seeks to appoint independent arbitral tribunal.2. Contextual facts depict that as per Clause 20 of the contract agreement in case of any dispute between the Managing Director of Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation and the applicant the Managing Director would be the sole arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. The applicant served a ; notice on December 11, 2006 stating therein I. the details of dispute and claims to Managing Director, Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd. for conducting the arbitration | proceedings for the settlement of disputes. But no proceeding as per Clause 20 of the contract agreement was effected. Rather non applicant failed to perform the functions entrusted to him under the procedure and vide reply dated December 19, 2006 the Managing Director refused to conduct proceedings. In reply to the notice sent by Advocate...
Rakesh Kumar Gangwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3568
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These writ petitions have been filed at the instance of one assessee Rakesh Kumar Goyal in respect of assessment years 1990-91 to 1994-95. These petitions are being decided by this common judgment on the basis of the facts of SBCWP No. 4866/2000 which pertains to assessment year 1988-89. The assessee has challenged the notices/letters dated 20/9/2000,17/10/2000,17/10/2000 and 17/10/2000, Annexures 5, 7, 8 and 9 respectively, whereby certain additional information has been asked for by the assessing authority from the petitioner-assessee in reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act').3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that such information could not be called for by the assessing authority because Section 148 itself provides that the provision of the Income Tax Act shall, so far as may be, applied accordingly to the proceedings under Section 148 as if t...
Sanjay Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2680
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 8.5.2000 whereby the revision petition preferred by the District Supply Officer was allowed by the Food Commissioner and the order passed by the Collector in the appeal of the petitioner dated.,13.8.1999 was set aside.2. The petitioner was a licencee of the fair price dealer having shop No. 542A in Jaipur City. The respondent undertook the massive drive of checking fair price shops in the month of December, 1996. The petitioner's shop was also inspected on 15/16.12.1996 by the District Supply Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'DSO') pf the Headquarters. The show cause notice was issued to him on 26.12.1996 which was replied to by the petitioner. The licence of the petitioner was cancelled and his security amount forfeited by the DSO (Headquarters) vide order dated 13.5.1997. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before Collector, Jaipur under Clause 22 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other...
Bhanwarlal Vs. Rajendra Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN534
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Each of these eight revision petitions involving similar nature issue is barred by limitation by a few days (31-34 days); and each of the petitioners has moved application for condonation of delay stating a similar nature ground that for want of proper legal advice and for his being a layman, could not immediately take requisite steps for assailing the order in question.2. Having regard to the circumstances, ignoring the delay, the matters have been considered on merits.3. The petitioners are tenants in the premises situated at Sri Dungargarh and are facing suits for eviction filed by their respective landlords. The petitioners moved similar nature applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the submissions that earlier the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act'/'the Act of 2001') was not extended to the area in question i.e., the municipal area of Sri Dungargarh but, with its amendment under the Notification dt. 20.01.2006, the...
R.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. Om Prakash Sharma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR746]
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By filing this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the order dated 5.4.1997 passed by learned Labour Judge & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the learned Tribunal).2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner-Corporation are that the non-petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'), claiming therein the benefit of wages of the post of Artisen Grade I & II. It was stated that the Union had raised a dispute regarding grant of wages of the post of Artisen Gr. II in favour of few employees, who alleged to have been the member of the Union. The said dispute was thereafter, registered as IT No. 124/88, and the learned Tribunal after hearing passed the award on 9.10.1995. Petitioner-Corporation further mentioned in the petition that it preferred a writ petition in as much as the award so passed by the learned Tribunal was passed on perverse findi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »