Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(3)WLC205; 1992WLN(UC)360
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Seth Motilal College, Jhunjhunu, is an educational institution at Jhunjunu, and it is managed by Shri Jhootalal Educational Society. The Government of the State of Rajasthan grants 90 per cent financial aid to this institution.2. On the basis of an application dated 2nd June/86, made by the petitioner, Chandra Prakash Chaturvedi, and personal interview on 3rd Oct.,'86, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science, in Seth Motilal College, Jhunjhunu (for short, 'the College', hereinafter), on a temporary basis, with effect from the date he joined his duties till the last date of the current session 1986-87. It was specified in the appointment-letter (Annex. 1) that the appointment would be subject to the approval of the current session 1986-87. It was specified in the appointment by the Director of College Education, Rajasthan and University of Rajasthan, and the rules & regulations of the institution in force, or which might be enacted ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1976WLN150
M.L. Joshi, J.1. In these two writ petitions the common question that arises for consideration is as to whether Rule 61(1) of Industrial Disputes Rules (Central) which prescribes time for filing application for recognition of a workman as a 'protected workman' is a Mandatory or is a directory one. The petitions are therefore being disposed of by a common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the point of controversy it will be appropriate to give first the material facts of both the petitions in brief.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 51/75.3. Rajasthan Anushakti Karamchari Union is a registered & recognised trade union functioning in the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Rawatbhata. This Union is affiliated to CITU, This Union was formed for the first time in September, 1974 The Union moved an application to the Chief Project Officer on 30-9-74 for declaring some of its office bearers as 'protected workmen'. Admittedly this application was filed after the time prescribed by Rule 61 of the Indus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1967Raj199
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. Both the courts below having allowed the claim of plaintiff Gangadhar for the recovery of Rs. 2,390/1/-, with costs, against the State of Rajasthan, the defendant has preferred this second appeal. 2. One Zorawarmal was found to have been murdered in his house in Churu, in the former Bikaner State, during the night between December 13 and December 14, 1948. He had no issue and used to live alone in his house. The police sealed all his property. Subsequently, the police reached the conclusion that Zorawarmal had died heirless and that his property bad escheated to the Slate. They therefore prepared a detailed inventory (Ex. 2) on the 23rd 24th and 25th January. 1949, in the presence of 'motvirs', making it quite clear that the property bad been seized because of escheat. It consisted of a large number of articles including jewellery and utensils. All these were placed in four rooms of Zorawarmal's house which were locked and sealed. The keys of the locks were placed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1955CriLJ95
Bapna, J.(1) These are 14 petitions Under Section 491, Criminal P. C. and Article 226, Constitution of India.(2) Petitions Nos. 100 to 107 were presented in this Court on 2-9-1953 and petitions Nos. 108 to 113 on 5-9-1953. All these petitions involve similar questions of law and fact and are therefore dealt with by one judgment. The detenus were arrested under the orders of the District Magistrate, Jaipur, dated 31-8-1953, purporting to act under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3, Preventive Detention Act of 1950. The orders in all the cases are similar and were as follows:No. - Dated 31-8-1953.Whereas, I Ramniwas Hawa, District Magistrate, Jaipur, am satisfied that (name and description of detenu) is indulging in activities highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquillity and whereas with a view to prevent him from acting in such a manner, it is considered essential to detain, him;I, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by Clause (1) of Sub-section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988CriLJ614; 1987(1)WLN538
ORDERN.C. Sharma, J.1. Bounded by main road and Bal Niketan on its front side, hack of Reserve Police Lines on the other, Ratanda area on its one corner and the main Road and Circuit House, Jodhpur on the other, there lies a sufficiently big area of land which it appears, belonged to former ruler of the erstwhile princely State of Jodhpur named Maharaja Ajit Singh and which has now been named after him as Ajit Colony, This big area of land was an open land. It appears that in and after the years 1974 or so, non-petitioners started their trade of cutting cattle-fodder bought to their 'tals' and selling them on commission basis on different portions of this land. Non-petitioners 1 and 5 have deposed the they had taken land of their 'tals' on rent. Process of colonisation over this land seems to have started from the year 1980 or so. Residential plots had been carved out on this land as appears from the two plans produced by the petitioners which are at page A3/15 and A3/24 of the case fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN(UC)542
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Different plots of land which are in dispute in these cases were allotted to the petitioners by the Municipal Board, Nokha. These allotments were made in 1975-76. The petitioners have claimed that they were in old possession of these lands but that particular fact is disputed in many of the cases. The sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners' case is that they have also raised construction over these plots.2. Notices were sent to the petitioners by the Rajasthan State. Notices are cyclostyled and are identical in all the cases. Notice issued to the petitioner Jhumar Lal reads as under :jktLFkku ljdkj Lok;Rr 'kklu foHkkxLak0 ,Q A Mk,yc@75@526 fnukad 24&6&78Jh >qejey iq= jkepUnz Nhik }kjk iz'kkld] uxjikfydk]usk[kk] chdkusjfo'k;% & HkwriwoZ v/;{k] uxjikfydk] uks[kk }kjk vfu;fer :i ls vkaofVr ,oa fodz; fd;s x;s }kjk vfu;fer x;s Hkw[ka.Mks dks fujLr fd;s tkus ckcr Apwafd HkwriwoZ v/;{k] uxjikfydk uks[kk us voS/k ,oa vfu;fer:i ls vius vf/kdkj {k...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)534
J.R. Chopra, J.1. The appellants Ahamed Ali Khan and Rahamat Ali have been convicted of the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu by his judgment dated December 23, 1974.2. The prosecution case in brief is that Sadulekhan PW 8 and Mukkarab Khan are the real brothers, the deceased Nathu Khan was the son of Sadulekhand, accused Ahmed Ali and Nizam Ali are the son of Mukarab Khan. There was some dispute between Mukarab Khan on the one side and Rahamat Ali and Ahamed Ali on the other side in connection with passage of water through the water course. In that connection permission was obtained by Mahaboob Khan and he had put up a Nali which was removed by the accused persons. In that matter deceased Nathu Khan had supported Mahaboob Khan and as such the relations between the deceased and Ahamed Ali and Rehmat Ali had become stained. It is alleged that on 8-7-1974 Ahamed Ali and Nathu Khan were at Churu, Ahme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985(1)WLN633
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Against the order dated July 19, 1984, the appellant who was petitioner in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge, has filed this appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.2. The petitioner-appellant carries on business in cloth in the name and style of M/s Sonraj Gautam Raj at Jodhpur and he is the employer and respondent No. 1, who was non-petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition, was employed by him on August 10, 1973. The appellant and respondent No. 1 will here in after referred to as 'the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 1' respectively. The case of non-petitioner No. 1 in the complaint that was field Under Section 28 A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (Act No. XXXI of 1958) (for short 'the Act') was that the petitioner had discharged him from employment without any reasonable cause and without notice on June 2, 1974. Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(1)WLN249
M.G. Mukherji, Actg. C.J.1. The present special appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th October, 1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3310/90, whereby the learned Single Judge holding inter-alia that the writ petitioner-appellant has got alternative efficacious remedy before the Labour Court, apparently following a Full Bench decision of five learned Judges of this Court in Gopi Lal Teli v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1995 (1) W.L.C. 1 : 1995 (1) W.L.N. 300, dismissed the Writ application only on the ground of alternative remedy being available to the writ petitioner-appellant.2. We have perused the said Full Bench judgment of this Court minutely. The Full Bench took into consideration the fact that in very many judgments, the Supreme Court itself held that alternative remedy is no bar for entertainment of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and there may be cases in which this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(1)WLN450
M.G. Mukherji, J.1. The present special appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th October, 1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of Our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3310/90, whereby the learned Single Judge holding inter-alia that the writ petitioner-appellant has got alternative efficacious remedy before the Labour Court, apparently following a Full Bench decision of five learned Judges of this Court in Gopi Lal Teli v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1995 (1) W.L.C.1. : 1995 (1) W.L.N. 300, dismissed the writ application only on the ground of alternative remedy/being available to the writ petitioner-appellant.2. We have perused the said Full Bench judgment of this Court minutely. The Full Bench took into consideration the fact that in very many judgments, the Supreme Court itself held that alternative remedy is no bar for entertainment of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and there may be cases in which this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!