Rajasthan Court August 2011 Judgments
Farhat HussaIn Vs. Rsrtc and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. Matter has come up on application filed by the respondent u/Art.226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of exparte interim order passed by the Court dt.24.11.2010. However, with consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard and being decided by the present order. 2. It has been alleged in the writ petition that petitioner was appointed as Driver after due selection vide order dt.23.12.2005 and under the Regulations of 2010 issued by the Corporation on 29.03.2010 decision was taken to regularize services of the drivers and Drivers-cum-Conductors who have been selected pursuant to advertisement no.201/2004-05 but petitioner's candidature was not considered by the respondent and at the same time show cause notice was issued on 24.05.2010 and other show cause notices have also been served reference of which has been made by the respondent in para (iv), copy of which has been placed on record as Annx.R/1/1, R/1/2 and R/1/3. 3. The main thrust of submission of counsel for peti...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. ChaIn Singh and Others.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1272 days in filing application for restoration of first appeal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed first appeal before this Court on 26.08.2003 against judgment and decree dated 05.08.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Bandikui, whereby plaintiff-Respondents No. 1 to 3's suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 23.08.1995 and for permanent injunction was decreed. No court fees was paid on first appeal and an application under Section 149 read with Section 151 CPC was filed for extension of time to deposit court fees. The application remained pending for almost more than four years and during that period also, court fees payable on appeal was not filed. The matter was listed before this Court on 29.10.2007. This court again granted one week's time to deposit the court fees on first appeal, failing which first appeal as ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnarayan Vs. Addi Civil Judge (J D ) and ors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner Ram Narayan has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 22nd May, 2010, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kotputli, denied to mark exhibit on the patta. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that during the course of cross-examination of DW-1, he sought permission to mark exhibit on the patta issued by Municipal Council in favour of petitioner-defendant. Learned trial court denied to mark exhibit on the patta on the ground that albeit under Section 49 of the Registration Act, unregistered and not properly stamped patta could have been used for collateral purposes, but it could not have been admitted in evidence until and unless the proper court fee and penalty was paid. 3. The learned trial court having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the impugned order. The impugned order se...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshwar Dayal Bhargava Vs. Additional District Judge and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The respondent no.2-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity and for standard rent with respect to the suit property, as described in para no.2 of the plaint. 2. The petitioner-defendant filed the written statement and denied all the allegations made in the plaint. During the course of trial, the petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of CPC for filing certified copies / documents. The plaintiff-respondent did not file any reply to the aforesaid application. The learned trial court dismissed the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of CPC vide order dated 24.2.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the learned trial court dismissed the application sans any cogent reason, hence the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court is found to have dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C...
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Nigam, Kota Vs. Kastoori Bai.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 137 days in filing second appeal as well as for admission of second appeal on merits. 2. The appellant has explained the delay in Para No. 1 and 2 of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which are reproduced as under: “1- That the appellant has filed this second appeal before this Hon'ble Court wherein he is very much hopeful to get success. The judgment and decree dated 14.11.2008 passed by ADJNo. 4, Kota where upon the certified copy has been received by the appellant on 22.11.2008 and thereafter the sanction for filing the appeal has been obtained from the competent authorities wherein in official process, the time has been consumed. The delay is not willful and deliberate one but it was due to process of proceedings which deserves to be condoned by this Hon'ble Court. 2- That the delay is not deliberate or willful but beyond the con...
Tag this Judgment!Teju Singh Vs. Po, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the Award impugned dt.20-08-2007 pursuant to which application filed by the employer seeking approval of its action was granted by the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner who was working as Conductor served with the charge-sheet for major penalty vide order dt.27-11-1996 under the signatures of Chief Manager, Bundi on being held guilty in disciplinary enquiry and the allegation against him was that 16 passengers who were found without ticket, fair from seven passengers was recovered before inspection and from remaining nine, it was recovered after inspection and his past record have also been referred to and it discloses that on 24 other various occasions, charge of either absence or of passengers being allowed without ticket was levelled against him; and taken note thereof and after being held guilty he was punished with penalty of removal from service vide order dt.08-10-1997. 3. It appears that industrial dispute was pendi...
Tag this Judgment!Project Manager, Rashtriya Matsya Beej Farm, Kota Vs. Smt. Shakuntala ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. Instant petition is directed against the Award impugned dt.30-08-2008 pursuant to which reference was answered in affirmative but the unfortunate fact was that pending reference the workman died on 19-06-2005, taking note thereof, the learned Tribunal moulded the relief and observed that the family of the deceased workman may be entitled for one time compensation of Rs.25000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 2. It was alleged by the deceased workman in his claim application that he was appointed on daily wages basis in June,1992 and continuously worked upto February,1993 and without complying the provisions of Sec.25F of the Act,1947 his services were terminated. It was further alleged by him that at the time of dispensing with his services juniors were retained by which the petitioner has further violated Sec.25G of the Act. 3. The learned Tribunal after examining the material on record finally observed that deceased workman worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months and in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›