Rajasthan Court May 2009 Judgments
Kusum Agrotech Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3162
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-11-2004, passed by Deputy Inspector General (Stamps) and Collector Stamps, Kota whereby the learned Collector held that an order passed by a High Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1959, (`the Companies Act' for short) permitting amalgamation of two companies is covered under the definition of word 'conveyance', contained in Section 2(xi) of Rajasthan Stamps Act,1998 (`the Act' for short). Therefore, the petitioner company is liable to pay the stamp duty. The Learned Collector had also directed the Sub-Registrar (Stamps) to calculate the extent of stamp duty payable. He further directed the Sub-Registrar to recover the stamp duty in case the petitioner company does not deposit the requisite stamp duty. The petitioner company has also challenged the order dated 21-6-2006, passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (`the Board' for short), whereby the learned Board has upheld the order dated 8-11-2004.2. The factual ...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Kumari and ors. and Asha Parmar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN197
ORDERNarendra Kumar Jain, J.1. In the aforesaid two writ petitions, the common questions of law and facts are involved, hence at the request of learned Counsel for both the parties, the arguments were heard and both the writ petitions are being disposed of finally together.2. The respondent No. 3 - Additional Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, issued an advertisement dated 24th January, 2006 inviting the applications for ANM training course from the candidates in 27 districts of the State of Rajasthan. The duration of the training was 18 months. The petitioners, who were having the requisite educational qualification, applied for admission in the ANM training course in OBC category. The petitioners could not be selected in the first and second counselling, but in view of the fact that number of vacant seats were available, therefore, they submitted a representation, which was allowed and vide order dated 24th February, 2007 (Annexure-3) issued by Directorate, Med...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Modern Construction Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj2813
Dalip Singh, J.1. This misc. appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed against the judgment dated 7.11.1970 of the learned District Judge, Kota in Civil Misc. Case No. 157/1967 by which the application submitted under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award dated 3.11.1967 filed by the State of Rajasthan has been dismissed.2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-Company entered into a contract with the appellant-State for construction of the Rana Pratap Sagar Dam at Rawatbhata in District Chhitorgarh in Rajasthan. The work of the Dam was completed on or about 31.12.1966. However, there were certain disputes which came to be referred to the sole Arbitrator under the orders of the Hon'ble Governor of the State of Rajasthan dated 25.8.1964.3. The respondent-Company filed as many as 26 claims before the learned Arbitrator and the State of Rajasthan submitted their reply to the claims before the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave his a...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chand Vs. Bhanwar Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3419
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner has submitted the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act of 1996') for appointment of Arbitrator with the allegation that the petitioner with respondent-Bhanwar Lal started business in partnership in the name of M/s. B.P. Textiles. A partnership deed was duly executed on 13.8.1975 and the partnership is a registered partnership firm under the provisions of Partnership Act. As per the petitioner, the firm took an industrial plot No. E.53 having area of 3,500 square meters on lease from RIICO in the town of Pali at Mandiya Road. A lease deed was executed and as per the petitioner, in favour of both the partners constituting partnership firm M/s. B.P. Textiles. According to the petitioner, this lease deed is subsisting till today. According to the petitioner himself, he separated from the business of the firm on 16.4.1978, however, the accounts books as well as properties remained in possession of r...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kaur (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1653
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. These writ petitions Involved following questions:(i) Whether the respondent-State was justified in preparing the list of selected candidates Districtwise for the appointment to the post of GNM/Nurse Grade-II or the State should have prepared the merit list Statewise?(ii) Whether the persons who were having more marks in merit if the list is prepared Statewise have been denied appointment wrongly?(iii) Whether while giving appointment to the post of GNM/Nurse Grade-II due regard was not given to the reservation policy? And lastly(iv) Whether the persons who were selected in the Districtwise seniority and have not joined are entitled to the appointment to the post of GNM/Nurse Grade-II merely because of the reason that the writ petition of several writ petitioners have been allowed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court while deciding SBCWP No. 4298/2008 and connected 110 writ petitions or because of this judgment?2. The brief facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Faizu Khan @ Faiz Mohd. Vs. the Judge, Special Court, Sc and St (P.A.) ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN251
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dt. 16.04.2009 Annex.5 and a direction to the respondent Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner to release the amount of Fixed Deposit Receipts which was deposited by the petitioner out of the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal in compliance of the Tribunal's order.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries resulting in amputation of left toe in a road accident on 12.09.2001 caused by the driver of the vehicle by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. A claim petition came to be filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) claiming compensation which came to be allowed by order dt. 29.11.2006 and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,09,174/-. After adjustin...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN255
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. At the request of learned Counsel for both the parties, the arguments were heard in the writ petition and the same is being disposed of finally.2. The petitioners were working on the post of Munshi, Store Munshi and Time Keeper, the Chief Engineer (Roads), Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide its order dt. 21.10.1989 (Annexure 1), amended the order dt. 07.12.1984 and the words 'Senior Munshi' were substituted by the words 'Supervisor (Store)-(Pay Scale No. 9)'. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners' posts were re-designated and they were posted as Supervisor (Store) in the pay scale No. 9. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, vide its order dt. 17.05.2002 (Annexure 3) wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, that the order passed by the Chief Engineer is without jurisdiction or contrary to rules and the aforesaid posts cannot be included in the revised...
Tag this Judgment!Range Forest Officer Vs. Jeeto Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN179
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the final arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of.2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned award dt. 26.05.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, camp Alwar, whereby the respondent No. 1 Smt. Jeeto Devi has been ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service. While setting-aside the order of her termination dt. 01.12.1988, the arrears of salary and allowances have been ordered to be paid w.e.f. 01.03.1993.3. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 did not work for 240 days in any calender year and she did not work after 30.11.1988. The objection about late filing of claim petition has also been raised.4. The respondents have defended the impugned award passed by the Labour Court.5. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. The Labour Court has calculated the actual w...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Gopal Verma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN174
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally.2. The petitioner preferred this writ petition with a prayer that respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and to appoint him on the post of P.T.I. Grade-III from the date his junior person namely Surendra Kumar Kasba has been appointed.3. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and in response thereto they have filed reply to the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that petitioner has been appointed on the post P.T.I. Grade-III vide order dt. 29.03.2004 (Annexure-R/1).4. In view of appointment order (Annexure-R/1), the learned Counsel for the petitioner restricted his argument to the extent that he should be given the benefit of seniority for the date his junior person Surendra Kumar Kasba was appointed on the said post. He referred Annexure-2, the appointment order of Surendra Kumar Kasba, whose na...
Tag this Judgment!Vijai Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN96
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 06.07.2000 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant is unsuccessful defendant, who has lost all through, right from the learned trial Court till before the learned Single Judge.2. The submission made before us, for assailing the impugned judgments is, that suit was filed on 15.05.1992, while as found by the learned trial Court, that settlement operations were under taken in the yer 1979, and in view of the provisions of Schedule III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, even the suit under Section 183 could be filed within 12 years of the arising of the cause of action, and by virtue of Section 63(1) (iv), since the plaintiff was admittedly deprived of possession, and since his right to recover possession got barred by limitation, per force of language of Section 63(i) the interest of the tenant, in his holding or a part thereof as the case may be, stood extinguished. It was also submitted that as a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »