Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1992Raj14; 1991(2)WLN337
1. These 17 appeals have been filed against the similar judgments of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagardt. Nov. 29,1985 by which he has dismissed the appeals of the plainfiff-appel-lant and confirmed the judgments and decrees of the trial Court (Civil Judge, Sri Ganga-nagar in Appeals Nos. 63/86, 80/86 and 65/86 and Munsif, Sri Ganganagar in remaining appeals) dismissing the suits for damages. The facts of these cases are almost similar and law involved is same. As such these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. On Sept. 6, 1979, the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (plaintiff-appellant) circulated notice Ex. 1 that auction sale of the sugar would take place on Sept. 10, 1979 at 4 p.m in the Mill, licenced traders dealing in sugar could only take part in it, immediately after the acceptance of the bids earnest money @ Rs. 30/- per bag would have to be deposited, and sugar purchased would have to be lifted within the specified period. This auction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj1395
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition by way of public interest litigation has been filed by as many as twelve residents of Pilibanga township of district Hanumangarh with the prayer that the respondents be directed to remove illegal encroachments and unauthorized constructions raised by those mentioned in Annexure P/27 in the middle of the Kharlia Road and Nehru Dharamshala Road as shown in the enclosed map of the Pilibanga Agriculture Marketing Yard/Shopping Area. It has been asserted in the writ petition that Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pilibanga set up an agricultural marketing yard(for short' the Yard') as per the plan approved by the Chief Town Planner-cum-Architectural Adviser of the Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, The plan of the yard was approved in the year 1964 according to which sufficiently wide public roads were left open. One such road which was originally named as Hospital Road has now come to be known as Kharlia Road. This road starts from Nat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1987Raj159; 1987(1)WLN637
ORDERNavin Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Dharmichand husband who has petitioned for the divorce of his wife Smt. Sobha has come in revision against the order of the District Judge, Pali dated April 24, 1986 whereby the said Judge has awarded to the wife alimony, pendente lite the petition for divorce at Rs. 300/- per month from January 8. 1986.2. Husband's case is that he is employed as a Munim with M/s Birdhi Chand Champalal and he is getting only a salary of Rule 400/- per month and the amount of alimony pendente lite awarded by the District Judge is not only high but has been arbitrarily fixed. With regard to the expenses of litigation, it has been contended that the wife has already been paid a total amount of Rs. 1350/- for that and no further direction for awarding of more amount is warranted.3. Wife's contention on the other hand, is that father of Dharmichand carried on Kirana business under the name and style of M/s. Anand Vastu Bhandar and the husband admittedly is joint with his fat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj187; 1972()WLN1052
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Shri Jwala Prasad Sharma, erstwhile Chairman of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the corporation'), which has been superseded by the State of Rajas than by a Notification No. F. (7) (3) (3) Pari/72 dated 20th May, 1972, marked Annexure 5 on the record. Since the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said notification and has prayed that it may be set aside, it would be proper to reproduce this notification in extenso:--'GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN Home (Group VII) Department No. F. 7 (3) (3) Pari/72, Dated the 20th May, 1972. NOTIFICATION Whereas the State Government issued a notice under Section 38 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act LXIV of 1950) to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation on 18th April, 1972 to show cause why it should not be superseded; AND whereas the State Government after consideri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1997Raj284; 1997(2)WLC85; 1997(1)WLN138
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. This second appeal has been directed against the decree/order/judgment dated 10-10-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat dismissing the appellant's first appeal on the ground that it was barred by time.2. Respondent Manak had filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of plot of land situate in village Giri. Defendant-appellant in his reply claimed that the suit land was in his possession. The trial Court framed three issues. After recording evidence and hearing the parties the trial Court decreed the suit on 26-8-1994 holding that the suit land belonged to the plaintiff and it was in his possession. The defendant preferred appeal before Additional District Judge on 19-10-1994. The office reported that the appeal was time-barred. The appeal was, however, admitted subject to objection of limitation. Thereafter, vide impugned order the learned Additional Dist. Judge held that the appeal was time-barred. He, therefore, dismissed the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1984]55STC153(Raj); 1983()WLN42
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. As identical questions of fact and law are involved in both the writ petitions, the same are disposed of by a common order.2. Writ Petition No. 105 of 1981 has been filed by Jaipur Wool and Namda Association, a company registered under the Rajasthan Non-Trading Companies Act, 1960, for promoting the cause of the persons who are interested in the manufacture, sale and purchase of woollen felts. Writ Petition No. 359 of 1982 has been filed by M/s. Premier Felt Manufacturing Company which is carrying on business of manufacturing woollen felt at Rani Bazar, Bikaner. In the writ petition filed by Jaipur Wool and Namda Association it has been prayed that the respondents may be prohibited by a writ of prohibition not to recover any amount from the members of the petitioner-company whose names have been given in annexure 1 with regard to inter-State sales tax as the amount has already been paid to the State in the form of additional excise duty every year. It has been furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj233; 2003(3)WLC368
ORDERRajendra Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The facts giving rise to present writ petition are that the sale deed purported to be executed by Smt. Shahjadi Khatu W/o Salim Khan in favour of the petitioners on 12th May, 1993 and on that very day it was produced before the Sub-Registrar, Phalodi.3. The Sub-Registrar made the following endorsement on the presentation disclosing that an enquiry required to be made under Section 34, was made by him about the due execution of document :4. After the aforesaid endorsement was made, vide order dated 14th June, 1993 the Sub-Registrar. Phalodi, refused to register the document for the reason that he does not consider it in the interest of justice to register the said document. The entire order reads as under :(Vernacular matter omitted.........Ed.)5. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid two orders of Sub-Registrar before the Registrar, Jodhpur, on 17-7-1993 and preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondent S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ328Raj; 1973()WLN686
ORDERJ.P. Jain, J.1. This writ petition arises out of an industrial dispute between the petitioner-Corporation and the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are (1) Rajasthan State Roadways Karamchari Sangh, Jaipur; (2) Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation Karamchari Sangh, Jaipur; and (3) the State Roadways Workshop Union. The dispute was referred by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication by the Judge, Industrial Tribunal, respondent No. 1. Subject-mutter of reference are seven disputes contained in seven separate questions. Question No. 3 relates to the dismissal of the six employees of the central workshop of the Corporation. The Tribunal by the impugned award found their dismissal invalid and ordered their reinstatement with full back wages. He left the other questions to be decided at a subsequent stage. The Corporation has challenged this award in this writ petition.2. The facts leading to this particular disputes are th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1969WLN193
D.M. Bhandari, C.J.1. These ten cases are references under Section 113 of the Civil Procedure Code. The first nine references have been made by the Judge, Debt Relief Court, Bilara, in cases in which various debtors had filed separate application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 7 Hereinafter called the Act,. In all these cases various co-operative societies registered the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953 were shown as creditors. It was argued before the learned Judge on behalf of these 30 societies that the Act does not apply to the liability in respect of any sum due to any society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Rajasthan co-operative Societies Act 1953 and as such the Debt Relief Court was not empowered to pass any order in respect of their debt under the provisions of the Act They also relied on Section 146(2) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act 1965 with lays down hat nothing contained in the Rajast...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ608Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC1
Verma, J. 1. Admittedly the petitioner's Establishment in both the above writ petitions are fully covered under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as the Act). The Bonus Act has been enacted as a welfare measure to the working class employed in certain establishments and the employees are entitled to the bonus on the basis of the production or productivity or profit and for the matters connected therewith. The bonus is regarded as a deferred wage payable to the employees which can be claimed by them as a matter of right under the provisions of the Bonus Act. Statutory liability for payment of bonus to employees (sic) employed in establishment is also caused on the employer. Bonus is to be paid by the employer in the accounting year in accordance with the provisions of the Act after calculating the allocable surplus. Under Section 8 of the Bonus Act, every employee is entitled to be paid the bonus by the employer in the accounting year in accordance wit...
Tag this Judgment!