Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:a) By issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the notice 2.3.2010 Annexure-1 and the notice dated 17.1.2011 Annexure-3 passed by the respondents be quashed and set-aside.b) By issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, the respondent No. 1 be directed to exempt the petitioner from recovering the amount of illegal interest of Rs. 8,63,000/- against the loan of Rs. 5,76,000/- which has been calculated @ 13.5% per annum with compounded interest.c) That the compound interest of 13.5% per annum which is being charged by the bank from the petitioner be converted into simple interest of 6% per annum.d) The cost of writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.2. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that in the year 2006-07, the petitioner took loan of Rs. 5,03,000/- and Rs. 73,000/- from State B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Dispute involved in these three writ petitions is between common parties, namely, management of M/s Tarachem Laboratories, Jaipur and workman S.K. Nagesh and, therefore, they were all clubbed and heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. Genesis of dispute lies in the initiation of proceedings before Labour Court, Jaipur by Notification dated 28.02.1979 making thereby reference of an industrial dispute as to validity of removal of workman S.K. Nagesh. M/s Tarachem Laboratories (for short, 'the management') in Writ Petition No.605/1996 has challenged order of Labour Court, Jaipur, dated 13.08.1984 by which Shri S.K. Nagesh was held to be 'workman' within meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act'). Also under challenge in this writ petition is final award passed by Labour Court, Jaipur, dated 24.01.1995 declaring retrenchment of workman S.K. Nagesh to be illegal and holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Instant petition has been filed by M/s BD & P Hotels (India) (P) Ltd who was in possession of Hotel Mukandgarh Resorts since 04/08/2009 on having purchased lease hold rights through respondent-6 (secured creditor) under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), but has been dispossessed on 09/03/2010 pursuant to warrant of possession issued by the Executing Court, Jhunjhunu on 05/03/2010 in Execution Appl.No.35/2009) at the behest of decree holder in execution of Arbitral Award dt. 15/02/2009 passed for recovery of possession and arrears along with interest against its lessee (respondent-5), possession whereof was taken over by secured creditor (TFCI-respondent-6) with whom lease hold rights were mortgaged creating security interest by respondent-5 with the consent of lessor (respondent-2 to 4) on 22/08/2008. Question arising for consideration in instant case is as to whether petitioner in whose favour lease hold...
Tag this Judgment!