Rajasthan Court January 2010 Judgments

Rama Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj772

Sangeet Lodha, J.1. The petitioner employed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (in short 'CRPF' hereinafter) was charge sheeted vide memorandum dated 11.11.91, whereby following charges of mis conduct were levelled against him:Article-IThat the said No. 830734287 CT Rama Khan while functioning as Constable in ISA committed an act of misconduct in the discharge of his duty in his capacity as a member of the Force Under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, in that on 10.8.1991 at night he with the connivance of civilians namely Amrit Lal, Mangi Lal and a Jeep driver Babu Singh stole 12 corrugated iron sheets (a Govt. property) from MT Part of ISA, CRPF, Mount Abu and sold it to Shri Mohammed Gafoor, Kabari of Manpur village at Abu Road on 12.8.1991. Thus he acted in a manner unbecoming of a member of the force.Article-IIThat the said No. 830734287 CT Rama Khan while functioning in the aforesaid office, committed an act of misconduct in the discharge of his duty as a member of F...

Paras Kumar Mandhniya Vs. M.D.S. University and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj717

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has moved this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to issue mark sheet of PGDCA Examination which the petitioner has passed and for returning the original documents of the petitioner.3. Brief facts of the case that the petitioner passed his class 10th examination in the first division in the year 1995 and thereafter passed his class 12th examination in the year 1997. Thereafter the petition got admission in B.Com in the University of Calcutta and appeared in the examination for the graduation degree course. The mark sheet of first year examination in the University of Calcutta are not issued and the mark sheets are issued only after a candidate clears Part II examination. The petitioner cleared the said examination from the aforesaid university. After completion of graduation examination, the petitioner got admission in the Post Graduate Dipl...

J.K. White Cement Works and anr. Vs. Lal Chand Sharma

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj861

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this revision petition, petitioner J.K. White Cement Works, Gotan is challenging order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Merta in Civil Original Suit No. 36/2009 whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. by the petitioner-defendants for rejection o the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was rejected.2. According to brief facts of the case, non-petitioner plaintiff was employee of the petitioner company since July 1983 and was working on the post of driver, His services were terminated by the petitioner-defendant on 2.1.2008 after holding regular inquiry. On 1.2.2008, a notice was served upon the respondent-plaintiff calling upon him to vacate quarter No. E-105 which was allotted to him by the company in the colony constructed by the petitioners at Gotan for its employees. Against said notice and another notice dated 26.3.2009, the respondent-plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction Along with the said suit, a...

Smt. Badami Devi and anr. Vs. Municipal Board and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Deceased Joga Ram, husband & father of petitioners No. 1 and 2 respectively, was an employee of Municipal Board, Barmer. It is alleged that he remained absent from duty without leave and, therefore, in the year 1994, a notice was issued to him asking him to explain why his service may not be terminated because of his absence from duty. The said notice was duly replied but enquiry was not completed. However, Joga Ram died on 5.3.2000 then straightaway on 12.2.2001, order Annex. 19 was passed terminating his service with effect from 19.9.1994 which is retrospective.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents did not complete the enquiry in the life time of the deceased employee even by proceeding ex-parte against him if he did not cooperate and then on 12.2.2001, the order to terminate his service with retrospective effect was passed and on that day, admittedly, the employee was not alive and, therefor...

Ex. Barber Krishna Kumar Vs. the Director General Border Security Forc ...

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.10.2004 by which the petitioner on account of remaining absent from duty without leave of 177 days was treated as 'dies non' for all purposes and his name was struck off from the unit w.e.f. 10.10.2004.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that petitioner was not mentally fit and when he went to join the duties, he could not reach to the place of joining and could not be found by the family members and even by his employer, therefore, the order dated 10.10.2004 which was passed ex-parte is absolutely illegal. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know in reply to the petitioner's notice through is Advocate sent by the respondent that petitioner's brother preferred appeal against the order dated 10.10.2004 which was dismissed on 26.3.2009. The petitioner has not been supplied the copy of the order dated 26.3.2009 and, therefore, he has not placed on...

Ram Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj719

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated October 28, 2009 (Annexure-3) wherein the State Government constituted Panchayat Samiti Baori by including four Gram Panchayats Bapini, Jakhan, Punasar and Kinjari and the said panchayats were excluded from the Panchayat Samiti Osiyan.3. The petitioners are members of Panchayat Samiti Osian and Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats Bapini, Jakhan, Punasar and Kinjari of District Jodhpur. Earlier the State Government vide order dated 7.8.2009 proposed for constitution of new Panchayat Samitis from 8 Panchayat Samitis of State of Rajasthan including Osiyan Panchayat Samiti. Vide this order the State of Rajasthan authorised the District Collectors of districts mentioned concerned to do the necessary proceedings for changing the limits of the panchayat circles. In pursuance of the order dated 7.8.2009 the District Collector Jodhpur proposed constitution of a n...

Achal Singh Parmar Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.06/12/94 (Ann.14) inflicting stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect upon petitioner after holding disciplinary inquiry Under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('CCA Rules') and the order dt. 31/07/95 (Ann. 16) dismissing his appeal.2. Petitioner while working as Assistant Sadar Kanoongo in the Collectorate, Dholpur was served with memo alongwith charge sheet dt. 26/09/1992 (Ann. 7 to 9) imputing three charges. Finally, despite inquiry officer having not found either of charges proved against him, disciplinary authority held him guilty for charge No. 1 and inflicted penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect vide order dt. 06/12/1992 (Ann. 14).Charge No. 1 : Petitioner had purchased a plot in the name of his wife without informing and seeking prior approval of respondents.3. After regular inquiry held, inquiry o...

Jaipur Metals and Electricals Limited Vs. R.S. Metals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Rajasthan

Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the decree and judgment dated 29/2/1992 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. (214/88)73/89 whereby suit filed by plaintiff-respondent has been decreed.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff had supplied material vide three separate bills in all amounting to Rs. 2,72,574.56 to the defendant-company and at the time of these supplies there was a credit balance of the defendant company with the plaintiff company amounting to Rs. 1886.51. The defendant company could not make payment despite of several reminders and after sometime on 17/12/1977 the appellant company was declared relief undertaking under the Rajasthan Undertaking (Special Provision) Act, 1961. By virtue of the notification issued in this regard, the defendant company was protected from institution of suit or any legal proc...

Nav Bhart Buildcon (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR2010Raj70

ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Mics. Arbitration Application No. 54/2004. At that time, it came to the notice of the Court that similar application was filed by the petitioner-applicant at Jaipur Bench. The time was sought to know about the fate of the petition filed at Jaipur Bench and then it came to notice of this Court in the Arbitration Application No. 54/2004 that the applicant clearly stated that he is no longer interested in the said application at Jaipur Bench. In view of the above, the arbitration application No. 36/2002 filed at Jaipur Bench was dismissed by the order dated 4-2-2005. After noticing above affairs, this Court also noticed that the matter has already been sent to the committee constituted as per the clause No. 23 of the contract ...

Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. Vs. R.A.M. Earth Movers Pvt. L ...

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj788

Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 17.10.04 by the Sole arbitrator whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-non claimant Under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') questioning the jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal to proceed with the arbitration proceedings, stands rejected.2. The facts relevant in nutshell are that the petitioner, a Government company issued a Notice Inviting Tender ('NIT') dated 28.8.95 for the work 'Transportation of Gypsum (ROM) from Ballar Gypsum Mines to Lalgarh Railway Siding and Anoopgarh Railway Siding.' In pursuant thereto, the respondent No, 1 and some other persons submitted their tender. The rates quoted by the respondent No. 1 was the lowest, accordingly, its tender was accepted and the work order dated 9.2.96 was issued by the petitioner company in favour of the respondent No. 1 on the terms and conditions set out in the NIT as modified after negotiation. The term of the...