Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ766Raj; 1992(1)WLN389
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These five writ petitions raise common questions of law and so, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Briefly stated, the facts of each case are as follows:(1) Radheshyam's case: (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 907/87). It has been contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as L.D.C. w.e.f. December 1, 1985, on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day and he was allowed to continue till May 4, 1986. Thereafter, he was again appointed as L.D.C. with effect from May 5, 1986 for a period of three months on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/-per day and he was allowed to continue up to October 6, 1986. Thereafter, his services were terminated. Again, he was appointed as L.D.C. on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day with effect from February 2, 1987 to February 28, 1987 through Employment Exchange vide order Annexure-2 dated January 30, 1987. He has, therefore, contended that he was continuously remained in service with effect from December ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ208Raj
Mohini Kapur, J. 1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the payment of contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of casual employees engaged for purposes of loading and unloading. The respondent-Company is engaged in the work of export of garments, which is a partnership-firm. The appellant-Corporation demanded contribution in respect of three items and the same was challenged before the Employees' Insurance Court, Jaipur in respect of two items and now it is confined to contribution payable on Rs. 62,929 on account of loading and unloading charges. The learned Judge of the Employees' State Insurance Court has arrived at the conclusion that this sum of Rs. 62,929 was paid for purposes of loading and unloading but it was not paid to persons employed by the firm and on account of payment made to casual or stray workers contribution under the Act is not payable. 2. Against this decision dated February 19, 1980 the Corp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1995)ILLJ421Raj; 1994(3)WLC657
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. This petition involves a challenge to the termination of the service of the petitioner with effect from August 29, 1984 by way of striking off his name from the rolls. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of termination of his service and for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he joined service of the Hindustan Copper Ltd., Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu, with effect from September 1, 1967. At the relevant time, he was working as Machinist Grade B. On July 14, 1984 he had gone to Chirawa for meeting his ailing aunt. There he fell sick. July 15, 1984 was a Sunday and that was his off day. He got himself medically examined at Chirawa. The doctor at Chirawa declared him unfit for duty. He submitted an application on July 16, 1984 along with a medical certificate for grant of leave. He remained under treatment up to October 1, 1984 and after having been declared fit to resume duty he reported for duty ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1969WLN319
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the Additional District Judge, Jhalawar, holding that the Shah Jog Hundi on which the suit is based is inadmissible in evidence as it is not properly stamped.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties & am satisfied that the decision is erroneous.3 A Shah Jog Hundi is only payable to a Shah namely a man of worth and substance known in the Bazar. The Hundi in suit short of superfluous verbiage runs as follows:Kanhaiya Lal Dulichand of Manohar Thana conveys his greetings to Kanhaiya Lal Dulichand of Manohar Thana. We have deposited the sum of Rs 3 000/- for this Hundi with Kanahaiyalal Shrichand of Manohar Thana. Please pay to a Shah in accordance with the custom with regard to Shah Jog Hundis on Asad Badi 13/S. 2014.Sd/- Dulichand7-5-67This Hundi was thus payable after a stated period. It was only payable to a Shah.3. The above Hundi is not a bill of exchange as defined under Section 5 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1980WLN212
Lodha, C.J.1. These three appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a single order as the only question involved in all the three appeals is the same namely, whether the right of preemption accrues on the sale of Khatedari rights in agricultural land under the provisions of the Rajasthan Preemption Act, 1966 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1966') The suits instituted by the preemptors in all the three case were dismissed by the trial court. When First Appeal No. 104 of 1970 came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, he noticed that there were two Single Bench decisions of this court taking conflicting views in the matter. In Prabhu Dayal v. Mahadeo Math 1972 WLN 455, It was held by Gattani J., as he then was, that a suit for preemption In respect of sale of Khatedari rights is maintainable. However, in civil revision petition No. 53 of 1959 Kishan Gopal v. Shivjiram and Ors., decided on January 20, 1969, Jagat Narayan J. as he then was dismissed summarily the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)242
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision application has been filed by Smt. Khamma Dew, widow of Lalchand in her own capacity as well as in the capacity as a natural guardian of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 against the order of the Munsif, Balotra, dated March 2, 1977 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 35 of 1975.2. A few facts deserve to be recalled lied here. Smt. Doli Devi widow of Hiralal (plaintiff-non petitioner No. 1 instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,000/- against Maghraj son of Jethmal (defendant No 1. non-petitioner No. 2) and the petitioners in the court of Munsif, Balotra on May 20, 1975. It was alleged that the plaintiff, at the request of Lalchand (husband of petitioner No. 1 defendant No. 2) and father of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 (petitioners No. 2 to 6) deposited a sum of Rs. 100/- on January 24, 1973 and Rs. 2000/- on January 25, 1973. To these two sums, an amount of Rs. 1000/- was added as interest and the present suit was instituted as aforesaid. The defendants Nos. 2 to 7 wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]61STC247(Raj)
S.S. Byas, J.1. These are four connected references and in view of Section 13(11) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, these references are now to be treated, heard and decided as revisions under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as substituted by the Amendment Act.In these references, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, has referred the following common questions of law to this Court for its opinion :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue is justified in holding that pachrangi dori is a commodity falling within the purview of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, pachrangi dori would be taxable at 2 per cent during the relevant periods as declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Section 15 or at the general rate of 7 per cent for unclassified goods ?2. The facts involved in all these references are common exce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(2)WLC564
V.S. Kokje, J. 1. The appellant Smt. Vandana was elected to the Zila Parishad, Udaipur in the month of January 1995. She was elected Zila Pramukh of the Zila Parishad, Udaipur on 20th January, 1995. A No Confidence Motion against her was initiated on 2nd Feb. 1999. The meeting of the members of the Zila Parishad, Udaipur was requisitioned to be held on 23rd Feb. 1999 in the Office of Zila Parishad, Udaipur to consider the Motion. After holding the meeting, the Collector, Udaipur, who was presiding over the meeting declared that the Motion of No Confidence was carried. Thereafter Smt. Sajjan Katara was alleged to have been nominated as Zila Pramukh on 27-2-1999. 2. The appellant-petitioner challenged the proceedings of the meeting in which the No Confidence Motion was declared to be carried out as also the nomination of Smt. Sajjan Katara, by filing a petition in this Court. Several grounds were raised in the petition including the question of fairness and validity of the procedure adop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993CriLJ3182; 1993(2)WLC27
M.R. Balla, J.1. A Civil Revision Petition i.e. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 585/1991, Rajasthan Sports Council and Ors. v. Aam Janta Shaher, Jaipur was listed before the single Bench of Justice R. S. Kejriwal on 18-9-1991. In this revision petition, respondent Radha Mohan Lal claims to espouse the cause of general public in the dispute with the Rajasthan Sports Council with regard to the alleged destroying of an ancient pucca tar road under the nomenclature of 'Shri Govind Deoji Ka Rasta'. Respondent Shri Sua Lal Yadav is appearing as counsel of Radha Mohan Lal in this revision petition. On, 19-9-1991, Justice R.S. Kejriwal recorded as under and placed the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice:-'19/9/1991.S. B. Civil Revision Petition 585/1991, Rajasthan State Sports Council v. Aam Janta, Jaipur was fixed for final disposal, in admission before the Court on 18-9-1991. On that day, the non-petitioner Radha Mohan with his counsel Shri S.L. Yadav was present and they submitted an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR586]; (1995)IILLJ204Raj; 1994(2)WLN1
Kokje, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.2. The appellant was in the service of Rajas-than State Road Transport Corporation, Pariva-han Marg, Jaipur (for short, 'the Corporation' hereinafter), as Lower Division Clerk and was posted at Phalodi Depot. By an order dated February 16, 1982 he was transferred to Banswara. It was alleged that he did not join at Banswara despite having been relieved from Phalodi Depot. According to the appellant he was not relieved and was granted leave from May 4, 1982 to May 18, 1982. The respondent Corporation on the other hand contended that the appellant did not join at Banswara after being relieved and in fact overstayed the leave granted to him. The Corporation, therefore, proceeded to take action under Clause 26(8) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (for short 'the Standing Orders of 1965' hereinafter), applicabl...
Tag this Judgment!