Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN670
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Bilara dated 23-9-1978.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition are that in a suit filed by the non-petitioners a money decree was passed in their favour against the petitioners. The decree-holders filed Execution Petition. In those proceedings, an application under Section 4 of the Rajas-than Scheduled Debtor's (Liquidation of Indebtness) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was filed by the petitioners, claiming themselves to be scheduled debtors & certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Bilara, certifying the petitioners to be scheduled debtors was filed. Refuting that contention, decree-holders filed that the reply that the petitioners were not agricultural, labourers but were carrying on shop of gold and silver business. Bath the parties led evidence. The learned Munsif on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1980WLN(UC)74
1. Umaram, an unsuccessful petitioner, has filed this special appeal against the judgment of single Judge of this Court by which his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer of writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 2-1-73 and 13-6-74 of the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal South Division, Sriganganagar aid the order dated 2-3-68 of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, passed in & reference made to it under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act' hereafter was dismissed.2. In this appeal, the only point argued by Mr. Parekh, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the impugned orders in relation to the alteration in the water channel after an identical prayer for this alteration having been rejected earlier by the competent authorities under the Act was passed in judicial proceedings and in any case was of quasi judicial nature determining the rights of the parties and, therefore, since the above Act provides no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN917
Kan Singh, J.1. We have before us a bunch of 63 writ petitions. The petitioners therein challenge the validity of certain schemes of nationalisation over some routes in Rajasthan and as they raise some common questions of law, they were called on for hearing together and can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.2. By a notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 29-11-72, the Rajasthan State had nationalished 3 routes in the Kota region which were Kota-Jhalawar-Aklera, Kota Chechat and Kota-Ramganjrnandi. In pursuance of the scheme the Rajasthan State Roadways Department started providing transport services over these routes. It may be mentioned that though the routes both the termini of which fell on the nationalised routes were covered by the approved scheme, the other routes which partially overlapped (i e both or ore of the termini of which routes were beyond the nationalised routes and overlapping was on a portion) were left untouched and the operators of those ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN709
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated December 1, 1978 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 439 of 1978, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner.2. The appellant is a clerk in the United Commercial Bank, Bhopal Garh Branch, Jodhpur District. He was eligible for promotion to the higher post as Officer Grade 'D' on being selected after qualifying in a written test aid interview. A memorandum of agreement regarding the policy and the procedure concerning promotion and selection was entered into, between the respondent Back and the workmen through their unions and in the said agreement it was provided that in allocation of marks for the written test, interview, lengh of service and qualifications three marks would be given for Double Graduation or Master's Degree from a recognised University or a post graduate diploma of a recognised Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990(1)WLN383
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is a jail appeal challenging the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur dated 23-12-1988 where by the convicted the appellant for offence Under Section 392 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, directed him to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.2. Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that a report was lodged on 15th July, 1985 at Police Station, Sarmathuro by Gopal Das (PW 4) that his niece Meena and one Sunita d/o Khateru Lal, were returning after having Darshan of Mahakaleshwar. At that time accused appellant Tayab and one Maharaj Singh Jatav way laid them and at the point of pistol (Katta), they snatched the gold chain from thenect of Mst. Sunita and ran away. The girls raised alarm, hearing which several persons gathered there who chased the accused persons. They found accused Tayab sitting near a stone quarry. When he was soug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1999Raj140; 1998(3)WLC751
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Laxmi Enterprises Gangapur City, Di strict Sawai Madhopur had applied for financial loan for establishing a small factory to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, a Corporation established under law by the State of Rajasthan to help assist, guide and to uplift the industrialists. The petitioner wanted to manufacture and process sodium silicate. As per annexure-1 a total amount of Rs. 1,33,000/- was sanctioned on 2-9-1981. The petitioner established his factory at 246, Saloda Industrial Area, Gangapur City. On the application of the petitioner another loan of Rs. 22,000/- was sanctioned vide Annexure-3 on 2-2-1984, thus the amount of loan was enhanced to Rs. 1,55,000/-. Rate of interest as per Annexure-3 was fixed at 5% above the bank rate prevailing from time to time subject to a minimum 15%. However, it was also mentioned under clause 4(b) of Annexure 3 under 'Soft Loans heading' that if subsidy is available from the state Government and refina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)231
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challengad the selection of respondent No. 4, 5, and 6 for post of Branch Librarian in the University of Jodhpur. The names of these respondents were recommended by the Selection Committee. Petitioner's case is that this Selection Committee was constituted contrary to Section 4 of the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 as amended by Act No. 24 of 1976.2. It was argued by Shri Vyas, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the post of Branch Librarian is covered by the definition of the word, 'officer' as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, of 1974 which reads as under:--Officer' means the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar, the Assisatant Regsitrar, the Librarian of a University and, includes any other 'officer' by whatever name deignated, and, declared by the Statute to be an officer of that University.The contention of Shri Vyas in this respect can be expected now and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1998Raj153
ORDERP.C. Jain 1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 1-12-1997 whereby the learned lower Court has permitted the plaintiff-non-petitioner to cross-examine DW 1 Amarjeet singh with reference to the copy of the assessment order for the year 1980-81 filed by the plaintiff under Section 65 of the EvidenceAct.2.1 have beared Mr. A.K. Acharya the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner and Mr. Bhupendra Bhatnagar, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 1-12-1997 on the ground that the learned lower court has not stated a single word about the fact as to whether the plaintiff-non-petitioner was entitled to produce the secondary evidence. Section 65 of the Evidence Act contains the cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. Looking to the nature of the document, it could h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR257]; (2001)IILLJ559Raj; 2001(2)WLC220; 2001(2)WLN468
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for Ihe appellant. (2). The appellant challenges Ihe order p|ssed by learned Single Judge rejecting his petition filed against the order pass,ed by Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur dated 14.3.2000 on an applicalion moved by respondenl Harish Gogna, a Medical Represeniative of the petitioner company, under Seclion 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent has moved an application under Section 33-C(2) before Ihe Labour Court on 31.12.1399 for quantification and recovery of a sum of Rs. 48,553.30 alleged lo be due from the petitioner appellant as remuneration for period from July 1997 to August, 1998. The respondent alleged the petitioner to be his employer. The petitioner did nol respond to the notice issued by the Labour Court of the application moved by the respondent workman and, therefore, the court directedthe proceedings lo conlinue exparte on 6.8.1999. Prior to proceeding exparle Ihe Labour Courl has received a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)IIILLJ715Raj; RLW2009(2)Raj1778; 2009(3)SLJ114(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged its coverage under the provisions of Employees. Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.2. The respondent - authority under the said Act after holding inspection issued notice Annex.4 dtd. 21.3.1994 to the petitioner - Trust about coverage of said Trust under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner - Trust supplied the requisite information in the prescribed form, Annex.6 on record to the effect that the petitioner is a temple - Trust of 600-800 years old and it is neither a business nor an industrial establishment, but it is a temple and is a Trust registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, with the Devasthan Department. It was also stated in the said Annex.6 that looking to the historical importance of the said temple - Trust, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has exempted the said Trust from Income Tax. It has neither any profit motive nor is engaged in any business activities or industrial activities...
Tag this Judgment!