Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-17-1991
Reported in : 1992(2)WLC19; 1991WLN(UC)402
N.K. Jain, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed Under Section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the judgment of learned District Judge, Udaipur dt. 1.8.89 whereby the award given by arbitrator was made rule of the court.2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act. Respondent No. 1 is a registered firm having its registered office at Calcutta and brench office at Udaipur. The appellant and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement Ex. 1 on 14.5.81 for excavation and removal of overburden at Jhamarkotra Mines, Udaipur on a turn-key basis for excavation, removal transportation including loading and unloading, disposal clumping, dozing, levelling and spreading etc. of over burden at the specified dump yards including final dressing of the mine benches, faces and sides etc. and incidental mining rock phosphate are encoundered during the excavation of over burden, its transportation orestacks etc. The contract is for a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-04-1991
Reported in : 1992CriLJ955; 1992(1)WLC76; 1991(2)WLN212; 1991(2)WLN259
V.S. Dave, J.1. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that the order granting remand to judicial custody to accused SVS Kuldeep Jain, Meethalal and Khajulal by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, be declared illegal and consequently the detention to be unlawful. They further prayed that they be directed to be released forthwith.2. The main ground of challenge is that mandatory provisions of Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. have been grossly violated and the order granting remand to judicial custody has been passed in the absence of any prayer by the police or production of the case diary. The petitioners' case is that the Station House Officer, Police Station Motidoongri, Jaipur submitted a written report at the said police station on 19-11-1990 on which F.I.R. No. 275/90 was registered against one Shri D.P. Gupta at whose residential place as well as business premises a search was carried out revealing a sizable stock of explosives. The case was registered fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-28-1991
Reported in : 1992CriLJ723; 1991(2)WLC421; 1991(2)WLN165
ORDERR.S. Verma, J.1. These two petitions Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. raise identical questions of law and facts. Hence, they have been heard together and are being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself by common consent.2. In S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 228 of 1991 petitioners Raju and others are the registered owners of tractor No. HMT 3511 and they also own the compressor attached with this tractor. In S. B Criminal Misc. Petition No. 232 of 1991 petitioner Bhanwar Singh is the registered owner of Tractor RNE 8914. He also owns the compressor attached to this tractor. On 24-4-1991 both these tractors were found carrying explosives without any licence and hence were seized by Shri Mahendra Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahpura. At the time of seizures Tractor HMT 3511 was found in possession of Ramlal s/o Raju and Kalu s/ o Kana, while Tractor RNE 8914 was found in possession of one Mukut Singh, who is real brother of Bhanwar Singh. In connection with trac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-16-1991
Reported in : II(1992)ACC600; 1992ACJ843; AIR1992Raj61; 1992(1)WLC356; 1991WLN(UC)351
Balia, J. 1. The short question which is raised in this Special Appeal is that while fixing the quantum of compensation on 'no fault liability' principle by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a case of death or permanent disability in a motor accident, whether the provisions as they existed on the date of death or the law as is in force on the date when such quantum of compensation is determined, will be applicable. 2. Brief and undisputed facts which led to this Special Appeal are that one Kana Ram son of Shri Achala Ram resident of village Batadu died in a Bus accident near village Kawas District Barmer on 19/5/89. The accident took place with a bus of Rajashtan State Road Transport Corporation. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 who include widow, mother, father and minor brother of the deceased Kana Ram filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal somewhere in July, 1989 after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act' had come into...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-16-1991
Reported in : 1(1992)ACC736
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The short question which is raised in this Special Appeal is that while fixing the quantum of compensation on 'no fault liability' principle by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a case of death or permanent disability in a motor Accident, whether the provisions as they existed on the date of death or the law as in force on the date when such quantum of compensation is determined, will be applicable.1 A. Brief and undisputed facts which led to this Special Appeal are that one Kana Ram son of Shri Achala Ram resident of village Batadu the in a Bus accident near village Kawas District Barmer on 19-5-89. The accident took place with a bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. Respondents No. 1 to 5 who include widow, mother, father and minor brother of the deceased Kana Ram filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal somewhere in July, 1989 after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act' had come in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-11-1991
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ917Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner, namely, Jaipute Polyspin Limited, which is a public limited company, has prayed for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quash of the order dated April 13, 1990 (Annexure-8), passed by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby the Government has referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur the dispute as to whether the profit and loss accounts of M/s. Jaipur Polyspin Ltd., for the years 1982-83 to 1987-88 are correct and if not for which years the employees are entitled to Bonus.2. The case set out by the petitioner company is that it is engaged in manufacturing of synthetic yarn at its factory in Industrial Area, Ringus, District Sikar. It started production in the financial year 1982-83 and from the beginning it is running in losses on account of market conditions, severe power cuts, labour probl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-04-1991
Reported in : 1992(1)WLC179; 1991WLN(UC)254
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that the termination of the service of the petitioner be declared as illegal & be quashed & the Respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of daily wage casual worker & they be directed to make payment of arrears of salary as well as payment of salary for future period regularly.2. The case with which the petitioner has approached this Court is that he was initially appointed on the post of casual worker on daily wage basis with effect from 1.6.88. Thereafter he has been continuously working on full time basis as a causal worker on daily wages. He has completed more than 210 days of service without any break. In respect of this assertion that the petitioner has completed more than 240 days of continuous service, the petitioner has placed on record Annexures 1 and 2. Annexure-1 is a letter written by the Chief Officer of the Respondent Bank to the Manag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-04-1991
Reported in : 1992(3)WLC524; 1991(2)WLN436
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by the plaintiff (appellants) which was decreed by the trial Court for cancellation of adoption of Veer Singh by Ramlal (defendant No. 1) which was reversed by the first appellate court dismissing the plaintiff's suit, itself.Factual Matrix:2. Smt. Sukhli (plaintiff No. 1) had married to Harsahay. Harsahay is said to have died four years prior to the filing of the present suit. Thereafter, she is said to have been residing with Ramlal (defendant No. 1) as his wife, after performing village custom and rites. According to her, Ramlal (defendant No. 1) with an oblique motive, adopted Veer Singh as his son from Hardevararm (defendant No. 3) on 4-9-70 under a deed of adoption having been manipulated by defendant Nos. 2 & 3.3. In para 4 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have admitted that the defendant No. 1 had got adoption deed registered but, their assertion was that in fact, Hardevaram (defendant No. 3) never given his so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-29-1991
Reported in : 1992(1)WLC665; 1991(2)WLN459
R.S. Verma, J.1. Sheopat Ram, who was writ petitioner before the learned single Judge, is the appellant before us. Learned single Judge dismissed his petition holding that the same is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in Ram Rakh v. State of Raj. and Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition. No. 110/1991 decided on 5.3.1991). Aggrieved, Sheopat Ram has filed this Special Appeal.2. We may briefly notice here the facts giving rise to the writ petition and this appeal. The appellant is a member of Golawala Siyagon Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, hereinafter called the Samiti.The Samiti is a duly registeted Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter called the Act. Election of the Committee of the Society was to be held on 27.1.91. Election of the office bearers of the Society was to be held on 28.1.91. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Suratgarh appointed respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-28-1991
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ474Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioner, who is physically handicapped and who belongs to Scheduled Caste, has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit-4 dated September 6, 1990 by which his service, as a temporary Part-time Farash, has been terminated on the basis of the directions issued by the Director, Social Welfare Department, vide his circular dated August 7, 1990.2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the service of the Social Welfare Department in the year 1986 and was posted under the District Children Officer, Social Welfare Department, Sikar with effect from October 1, 1986 and was paid wages of Rs. 11 per day. He has continuously worked under Respondent No. 3 as a Class IV employee and has discharged duties for eight hours per day. Vide his letter dated March 11, 1988, the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, wrote to the District Children Officer, Social Welfare Department, Sikar to regularise the service of the petitioner, who was describ...
Tag this Judgment!