Rajasthan Court January 2009 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.
Management Marie Stopes and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN396
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been filed by the respondent workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') in this writ petition. Petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court dt. 04.06.2001. Application under Section 17B of the Act was filed as far back as on 26.06.2004 and has remained pending so far.3. Respondent-workman in her application has stated that she is not in gainful employment anywhere and that she is entitled to get relief as per Section 17B, (supra), which provides that last wages drawn by workman shall be paid to the employee if the employer challenges the award of Labour Court by which relief of his reinstatement has been directed. This application is supported by an affidavit of the respondent-workman, who has on oath stated that contents in paras No. 1 to 4 of the application are true and correct to her personal knowledge. There is also separate affidavit in which...
Sanjay and anr. Vs. Company Registrar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj828; [2009]95SCL165(Raj)
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Sanjay Sharma and M/s. Ocean Capital Limited-through Sanjay Sharma, against the judgment/order of Special Judge) Fake Currency Notes Cases) Court Jaipur City whereby appeal filed by the petitioner No. 1 against the judgment dated Feb 1, 2002 of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Jaipur City was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that on March 2, 2001 Bhullan Singh, Assistant Registrar Companies, Raj., Jaipur filed a complaint under Section 162 of the Companies Act 1956 (in short 1956 Act) against M/s. Ocean Capital Ltd. through Director Sanjay Sharma, Sanjay Sharma, Ajay Sharma and Vijay Sharma,. M/s. Ocean Capital Ltd. was a registered company and other three accused were its directors, who were responsible Officers of the Company for the day today work of the Company. Under Section 166 of the 1956 Act, the accused-petitioners should have held Annual General Meeting of the Co...
Priti Dixit (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1241
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Since in all theses writ petitions the selection process as well as non-consideration of the petitioners on the post of Prabodhak is under challenge, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgment.2. The petitioner has applied for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 issued by the respondents. As per the advertisement, the basic qualification required for recruitment on the post of Prabodhak is Senior Secondary and B.S.T.C. or B.Ed. or equivalent to it. Beside qualification, the candidate should have continuous 5 years teaching experience without any break from the recognised educational institute and the experience certificate should be countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer.3. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the respective petitioners, learned AAG Mr. S.K. Gupta and carefully gone through the relevant provisions of law and the other material available on the record.4. As per the provision...
Guman Mal and ors. Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2502
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-landlords Guman Mal and Ors. legal representatives of one Sanwal Chand, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dtd. 31.1.2008 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs- landlords was rejected as hit by the provisions of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950. The trial Court had, however, decreed the suit No. 23/2001 on 19.1.2007 directing eviction of the defendant-tenant on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs. The Smt. premises is a shop situated at Bhinmal, Distt. Jalore.2. Mr. OP. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the recent decision of this Court in the case of Late Mahadev and Ors. v. Babu Lal and Ors. reported in 2006(4) RDD 1868 in which this Court has held that Section 14(3) of the Act does not give a fresh protection of five years eve...
Kalim Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3370
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision has been filed by petitioner Kalim, against the order dated Nevember 3, 2008 of Addl. Sessions Bandikui (Distt. Dausa) in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2008 whereby the appeal of the accused appellant against the judgment of Judicial Magistrate dated October 3, 2008 whereby he convicted the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 5/8 read with Section 6 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and sentenced him for eight months RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment.2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused was caught raid handed carrying 15-20 cow-calf's for slaughtering in the Canter vehicle on Bypass Dausa National Highway No. 11. The accused was driver of the said Canter and the other accused who were 4-5 in number ran away when the raiding party of police personnel caught the Canter vehicle. The Police Stati...
Badri Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN72
Manak Mohta, J.1. Heard.2. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity and correctness of orders passed by the Courts below refusing to enlarge the juvenile on bail.3. Briefly stated that the facts of the case as revealed from the record is that on 08.10.2008 at the instruction of her husband-Sanwara, the prosecutrix-Debi went to village Kajodia (her parental village) for collecting due amount of Rs. 500/- from one Jagdish (maama of the prosecutrix), who stated that he had spent the amount in the 'Sagra Ji Ka Jagaran' and if she stays in the night he would arrange for the amount in the tomorrow morning, so on the saying of her husband and insistence of Jagdish, the prosecutrix stayed at village Kajodia. In the night at 10.00 p.m. while she was chanting songs in 'Jagaran', at that time, the accused Ramdev and Badri (Juvenile) told Debi that they would leave her at village Rahad, so the prosecutrix accompanied them on foot as Ramdev (being her cousin brothe...
Jaidev Vs. Dev Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN451
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant, owner of the vehicle, is aggrieved against the award dt. 16.08.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in MACT Case No. 63/2005 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 70,668/- on account of injuries suffered by the claimant/respondent Dev Singh.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant's vehicle has been wrongly involved in the accident. In the FIR, vehicle number was given as RJ 13C 0155 whereas the appellant's vehicle number is RJ 13C 515. It is also submitted that the claimant in his statement before the Tribunal very specifically admitted that the number given in the FIR of the vehicle which is RJ 13C 0155 is the vehicle by which the accident was caused. It is submitted that in fact, the driver of the appellant's jeep merely helped the victim as he found the victim sitting injured after the accident, which was caused by jeep No. RJ 13 C 0155 and he too...
Lrs. of Mahaveer Prasad Vs. Pawan Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN580
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dt. 26.08.2006 and the order dt. 09.08.2007 and therefore, preferred this writ petition because of the reason that issues involved in two applications, which were decided by the trial Court by two separate orders is inter-related. The petitioner's-defendant's application filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC was dismissed by the trial Court after observing that the defendant in his written statement did not give reference of the rent deed dt. 01.06.1986 and the plaintiff in his reply to the application stated that the rent deed in question was never executed. The petitioner's-defendant's application filed under Section 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dt. 09.08.2007, which substantially in the light of the decision given dt. 26.08.2006.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner clearly stated in his written statement that...
Natha Singh Vs. Balvindra Kaur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN588
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties finally as both the learned Counsels argued the writ petition on merits.2. The trial Court granted injunction order in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner vide order dt. 22.10.2007 against which the appeal was preferred by the respondents. The appellate Court upheld the order of injunction so far as preventing the respondents from selling the property in dispute but removed the condition against the mortgage of property in dispute by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred.3. Once the two Courts below found prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the petitioner and that finding has been concurrent, then during pendency of the suit, if the respondents will be allowed to create charge or mortgage the property in dispute, then that will be creating the charge over the property which may be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner to the extent that the mortgagee who ma...
Afjal Khan Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj615
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 6.12.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Kota in Cr. Appeal No. 388/2008 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and against the order dated 1.12.2008 passed by Principal Magistrate & Juvenile Board, Kota in relation to FIR No. 666/08 registered at Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota for the offence under Section 302 IPC whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been rejected.2. Brief facts of the case are that on complainant submitted an FIR No. 666/2008 at P.S. Vigyan Nagar, Kota for offence under Section 302 IPC.3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved his bail application before the Principal Magistrate & Juvenile Justice Board Kota but the same was rejected ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »