Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 22 retirement release or discharge Court: rajasthan Page 11 of about 128 results (0.074 seconds)

Feb 18 2002 (HC)

Union of India Vs. Brij Lal Prabhu Dayal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2002(4)WLC67; 2003(2)WLN298

..... 2001) 1 scc 516. the supreme court has made a distinction between the case of order passed under section 17 of the central administrative tribunal act and section 19 of the act. where the tribunal exercises its jurisdiction under section 17 of the act of 1985, it is exercised as a tribunal in addition to high court and not as a substitute ..... under reference was captioned as under:appointment of distt. govt. counsel civil court sriganganagar for defence of land reference cases arising out of acquisition of land for army at suratgarh on behalf of union of india and others.55. in pursuance of this letter of 14.10.1993 the district collector communicated to the govt. ..... a result, we on merit of this appeal do not find that the learned single judge has committed any error in rejecting the application under section 5 of the limitation act by holding that the appellants have failed to show any sufficient cause which could prevent it from filing the appeal within limitation.60. the aforesaid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2014 (HC)

Arun Kumar Kashyap Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... getting the disciplinary enquiry finalised and completed and despite the numberless communication sent to him, he never respondend in a manner inwhich an officer like the petitioner was expected to act and did not cooperate at all in the enquiry and the department was left with no option but to proceed ex-parte. besides this even for getting the provisional pension .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1996 (HC)

Oswald S. Joseph Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and or ...

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : [1997(75)FLR250]; (1997)ILLJ241Raj

..... sentence to imprisonment and could not therefore be said to be in active service, does not detract from the fact that he was still a person subject to the army act. when he refused to eat his food, it formed the subject matter of another summary court martial and he was sentenced as stated above. it was observed by ..... on august 23, 1983 might be treated as his statement. 9. learned single judge thought that had the dispute been referred to the industrial tribunal under section 10 of the act of 1947, as an industrial dispute, the tribunal had to first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry was held in accordance with the rules ..... the standing orders, it was further submitted by the writ petitioner appellant that it was for the appropriate government either to make the reference or not under section 10 of the act of 1947 and there are no mandatory obligations enacted by the legislature casting an obligation on the appropriate government to make a reference of the dispute. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1973 (HC)

Kishna Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1973(6)WLN303

..... referring to the decisions cited by mr. ganpat singh. stated briefly, their lordships have declared the law relating to the definition of 'industry' in section 2(j) of the act as follows,--(1) every case of employment is not necessarily productive of an industry, for domestic employment, administrative services of public officials, etc. ..... (1970)iillj266sc .5. a number of decisions have been rendered by their lordships of the supreme court on the meaning of 'industry' as defined in section 2(j) of the act. their lordships' decision in the case of safdar jung hospital : (1970)iillj266sc has settled and declared the law on the point, after a review ..... retrenched the petitioner in accordance with the army instructions which governed retrenchment in defence establishments as they formed part of the petitioners conditions of employment.4. in support of his argument that the defence laboratory was an 'industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the act, the petitioner's learned counsel has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1982 (HC)

S.N. Singh Vs. Raj Atomic Power Project and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1982WLN417

..... and it has been held that when the orders are of concurrence, there is no obligation to give reasons. in that case, after considering sections 164 and 165 of the army act. which inter-alia provided for the making of representation by the aggrieved person before the authority empowered to confirm the finding arrived at by the ..... discussion prior to the initiation of conciliation proceedings with regard to any industrial dispute not relating to a public utility service where a notice under section 22 of the act has to be given (as in the instant case) the conciliation officer had a discretion vested in him under the statute either to hold ..... court martial & the consideration by such representation by such authority, the supreme court came to the conclusion that there was no express obligation imposed by the said sections .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2000 (HC)

Lok Hotels and Resorts Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jaipur Municipal Corporation

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR2000Raj396; 2000(3)WLC278

..... p., (1997) 1 scc 227 : (air 1997 sc 1549).33. it is not denied that the municipal corporation is governed by the provisions of the rajasthan municipalities act, 1959. sections 88 to 91 of chapter iv empowers the board to make rules, whereas chapter vii. deals with the imposition of taxes and chapter xi deals with the power to ..... laws for the constructions. the jda had framed the jaipur development authority building regulations, 1996 prescribing procedure for construction of the building in the region and u/section 68 of the jda act. fee to be charged had also been provided for approving the map for the purpose of permission of construction of the building. the maximum permissible commercial ..... should be specific provision for the same and there is no room for any intendment implied or otherwise.24. in the case of state of maharashtra v. the salvation army, air 1975 sc 846, it was held that two elements are essential in order to determine that the payment may be regarded as a fee i.e. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2009 (HC)

R.R. Narpat Singh and ors. Vs. Yuv Raj Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR2010Raj15

..... single judge agreed with the learned addl. district judge. then it was observed, that the term 'jagir' has been defined under section 2(h) of the rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, and the haveli certainly does not fall within that definition as held by the learned addl. district judge. with this learned single ..... not passed, because former jodhpur state was integrated in united state of rajasthan. however, rajasthan government accepted the recommendations of the consultative committee, and on 3-6-1950 ordered rs. 3000/- to be paid to the defendant ranjit singh, and directed that he be dispossessed. this amount was accordingly offered, but the defendant refused to ..... (1)(c) of the rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952 that the haveli is part of jagir, as the jagirdaras were also supposed to; be available in jodhpur, they were to have their cavalries here to serve state army, and for that purpose havelis were granted by jodhpur state, and therefore, it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1998 (HC)

Man Mal Sharma and Etc. Vs. Bikaner Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar and Etc.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1999Raj13; 1999(2)WLC195

..... . therefore, it is necessary that the registrar should be satisfied in respect of any of the above five circumstances for taking any action under sub-section (1) of section 36 of the act. the legislature,in its wisdom, has put the word 'persistently', meaning thereby the registrar has been clothed with power to issue notice only if the ..... kumar, air 1996 sc 691.42. section 36 of the act empowers the registrar toissueadirection only 'for the purpose of securing proper implementation of co-operative production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by the government.' therefore, ..... consistenly been following by the apex court as is evident from : union of india v. m/s. brij fertilisers pvt. ltd. (1993) 3 scc 654; chief of the army staff v. major dharampal, air 1985 sc 703; titaghur paper mills co. ltd. v. state of orissa, air 1983 sc 603; and executive engineer, bihar v. ramesh .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2008 (HC)

Murari Lal Khandelwal Vs. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR2008Raj108

..... court indicated thus:the last contention of the opposite parties is that the designated arbitrator has already given the award whieh is a decree as provided under section 31 of the act, it has been further argued by the opposite parties that the proceedings under seetlen 11 of the aet are administrative in nature and the decree already ..... impartial or objective.7. that takes me to the question as to what would happen when designated arbitrator passed award after the party already moved under section 11(6) of the act seeking appointment of arbitrator? as already noticed the respondent has come up with specific reply that the arbitrator was appointed in the month of november, 2007 ..... ltd. v. tata finance ltd, (2000 air scw 3925) and sharma and sons v. engtneer-in-chlef army headquarters, new delhi 2000 (2) arbi lr 31. the award given after moving of the application under section 11 of the act is non est. in the eye of law.as a result of above discussion the appointment of independent arbitrator .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1978 (HC)

Munir Ahmed and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)103

..... of motbirs. he arrested the appellants and recovered lathis from the possession of some of them at their instance and in consequence of their information's recorded under section 27 of the evidence act. after collecting other necessary evidence, the station house officer submitted a charge-sheet against all the appellants and niyamat khan s/o labdhi khan and gulam kadar & others ..... in the court of the chief judicial magistrate, churu, under section 302, 307, 324, 323 and 148, read with section 149, i.p.g. as niyamat khan son of ahmed khan was serving in the army, the station house officer could not procure his attendance at the time when the challan was filed by him .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //