Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2000Raj180
1. The State has preferred this misc. appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgement and decree dt. 16-7-1996 passed by the District Judge Jhalawar, whereby deciding objections of the State tothe application of the respondent M/s Navabharat Construction Co. (for short 'the Company') of claiming compound interest, the learned District Judge Jhalawar awarded simple interest @ 15% p.a. on the original award of Rs. 29,96,060/- from the date 16-7-1996 of its order till realization and further ordered to pass a decree entitling the respondent Company to recover whatever its claim granted under Award dt. 29-5-1995 from the State and also make Award amount a part of the decree. The decree passed is reproduced as under :--'With reference to the Award by Shri V. K. Gupta dt. 29-5-1995 the decree is passed asbelow :-- (i) An amount of Rs. 29,96,060/- (Twenty nine lakhs, ninety six thousands sixty only) will be paid by the non applicant for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1975WLN(UC)33
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a Gram Sevak in a substantive capacity in the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra While working on the aforesaid post, he was placed under suspension by the older of the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra, dated March 7, 1969. It appears that by a subsequent order dated October 27, 1969, the Finance, Taxation and Administration Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') confirmed the action of the Vikas Adhikari an lacing the petitioner under suspension. On July 3, 1969, the Vikas Adhikari served a charge sheet upon the petitioner wherein after enumerating the charges, he stated that the said charges were found proved against the petitioner and an such, the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in the service of the State Government the petitioner was, therefore, called upon to show cause why proceedings for his removal from service be not taken the petitioner case in that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN730
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Petitioners Qurban son of Lakha and Lakha son of Shafi have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of certiorari or prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued restraining the respondents State of Rajasthan and Tehsildar Chohtan froth ejecting them from khasra No. 90 measuring 33 bighas 11 biswas situate in village Jalila, tehsil Chohtan and further that a direction may also be issued for regularisation of their case Whereby quashing order Anx. C dated April 19, 1979.2. The petitioners are residents of village Jalila and are landless cultivators. Their case is that in Smt. 2032 they took possession of Sawai Chak Government land khasra No. 90 measuring 33 bighas and 11 biswas, and since then, they have been in continuous cultivatory possession of it. Their case further is that the unauthorised occupation made on the aforesaid land should have been regularised as per Government C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN(UC)388
M.B. Sharma, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus, or certiorari, or prohibition, or any other writ be issued prohibiting the University from holding the elections of the teachers as members or the syndicate in accordance with Section 16(1)(vii) of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act' hereafter). It is also prayed that the electoral rolls prepared as well as the notification Ex. 1 of the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 3) be quashed.2. The petitioner is employed as a Lecturer. In Structural Engineering in M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur. Syndicate is one of the authorities of the University and the manner of its constitution is provided in Section 16 of the Act. We are concerned with Section 16 of the Act, as it was substituted by Section 2 of the Jodhpur University (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, which received the assent of the Governor on 18th day of May, 1981. Section 16(1)(vii), which is relevant for the present ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)496
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. M/s. Bikaner Gypsum Ltd., Udaipur (hereinafter referred as 'the Company') is engaged in mining business and owns a rock phosphate mines at Jamer Kotra in Udaipur district in the State of Rajasthan. The Company is also running a canteen at the mines for the benefit of its workmen employed at the mines. The work of canteen was earlier supervised by two Supervisors but the canteen was not functioning satisfactorily. On November 27, 1971, the Company employed respondent No. 2 Mahesh Chandra Sharma on a newly created post of Canteen In-charge on a 'purely temporary basis' for a period of 6 months with effect from December 1, 1971, to look after the Company's canteen at Jamer Kotra. The appointment of respondent No. 2 was made on the condition that on the expiry of the period of 6 months his temporary appointment shall automatically stand terminated. According to the Company, the post of Canteen In-charge was created on an experimental basis with a view to improve t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1998Raj90; 1998(1)WLC521
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. All these writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since all these three persons relate to the land which was either sold or gifted by Shri Chandi Dan to the petitioners and was subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, I propose to dispose of them together by this common order.2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions may be recalled as follows: Chandi Dan and Suraj Dan, residents of Allawas Tehsil Sojat possessed 512 bighas of land situated in village Allawas. Chandi Dan has three sons namely, Kailash Dan, Ishwar Dan and Onkar Singh. Suraj Dan had no issue. These two brothers were joint Khatedars of the above land. Suraj Dan sold and transferred 400 bighas of land to Amba Dan. It was resisted by Chandi Dan and his three sons. A suit was, therefore, filed by Chandi Dan and his three sons against Suraj Dan and Amba Dan in the Court of Assistant Collector, Sojat. However, the matter was ultimately compromised ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986CriLJ1235; 1986(1)WLN484
M.C. Jain, J.1. This bail application has come up for hearing before us on the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on reference having been made by Shri K. S. Lodha, J., as he found himself unable to fall in line with the two decisions of this Court in Jumma Khan v. State of Rajasthan 1983 Rajasthan LR 382 decided by Shri G. K. Sharma, J. (one of us) and Surendrasingh v. State of Rajasthan 1981 W.L.N. (UC) 40 decided by Shri N. M. Kasliwal, J.2. We may state the few relevant facts. The applicant Johny Wilson was challaned in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jodhpur on Aug. 20, 1977 after investigation. 24-8-1977 was fixed for scrutiny of challan. But on that date, the accused absented and jumped bail and continued to remain absconding up to 4-8-83 i.e. for about 6 years. Thereafter, on arrest, he was produced by the police on 5-8-83. He was released by the order of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur on 27-8-83. The accused again absented on 14-2-84 and continued to ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(1)WLN369
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the Additional Munisf and Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, by which the applications of the petitioner and of other co-accused persons to drop Criminal proceedings against them for want of sanction Under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), were rejected. After being unsuccessful in the revision in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, the present petition Under Section 482 of the Code has been filed. In the normal course, I would not have entertained this petitioner after the right of revision having been exercised by the petitioner, but the question involved in the matter goes to the root of the case and is jurisdictional one, I propose to decide the same.To appreciate the question of law which calls for consideration, it is necessary to narrate the facts in brief.2. Non-petitioner Tikka Kan Singh filed a complaint on 14.6.82 against the petitioner and three other police cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990(2)WLN441
M.C. Jain, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.9.90. where by the learned single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition.2. The appellant Sardararam Dangi was appointed as class IV servant on 16.5.80. He passed the 'Prathma' examination of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan in the year 1983 and that examination has been recognized or Government of Rajas than as equivalent to the Secondary Examination of the Board of Second any Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer vide Ex. 2. Rule 10 (2) of the Rajasthan Sub-ordinate Courts Ministerial Rules, 1986 provides Secondary or its equivalent qualification recognized by the State Government to be he qualification for the post of Lower Division Clerk, Upto 10% Class IV employee can be appointed as Lower Division Clerks in accordance with Circular of the High Court, if peons have put in five years service and possess the requisite qualification for appointment of the post of Lower Division Clerks. There is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990(1)WLN572
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a State Revision Petition against an order dated 14-3-1989 of the learned Special Judge for ACD Cases, Jaipur, discharging the accused non-petitioner of the charge Under Section 161, IPC read with Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The only ground on which the accused non-petitioner was discharged is that the charge-sheet could not be filed by the Addl. SP, Outpost, Jaipur Gramin who was not the incharge of the Police Station.2. A well was dug by one Nathulal resident of Jireta Kalan Tehsil Dausa, Distt. Jaipur for irrigating his agricultural fields. He had applied for electric connection to the Assistant Engineer, RSEB, Dausa and demand notice date 23-1-1987 for Rs. 700/- was received. As Nathulal was an old man and having three sons including Babulal Bairwa, Babulal went to the office of the Assistant Engineer, RSEB, Dausa and as alleged that the accused non-petitioner gave out that the Asstt. Engineer will not release the connection unl...
Tag this Judgment!