Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ770Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Challenge made in this writ petition is directed against the award dated March 19, 1991 made by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in Case No. CIT 44/87. This award has been passed on a reference of industrial dispute made by the Central Government vide its notification dated July 7, 1987 issued under Section 10(1)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the matter of violation of Sections 25G and 25H allegedly committed by the employer in employing junior persons without considering the case of the workman Shri Gopal Lal Sharma (Respondent No. 2).2. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was employed for a total period of 79 days with the petitioner Bank between May 23, 1985 and August 20, 1985. The appointment was given against a leave vacancy and was for a fixed term and came to an end automatically on the expiry of the period, A dispute was raised by the workman after about two years in the matter of alleged wrongful termination and also regarding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(1)WLC275; 1991WLN(UC)457
V.S. Dave, J.1. When the State or corporations or the Boards created by the Statute who have also the legal departments to advise and panel of lawyers to advise and action their behalf, prefer appeals in cases which are squarely covered by a catena of cases decided by the High Court and the Appex Court of country namely, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India it shocks the consceience of the court as the money spent on litigations, which is Tax-payees money can better be utilized in development works. It is all the more disgusting when it is manifest from the record of the case that several counsels have been changed in the case at appellate for reasons best known as if that either going to improve the case or would change the settled law. The present case is not an exception to this.2. Appellant filed this Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Dated 2nd August, 1984, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992ACJ1057
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banner, dated April 27, 1989, by which it has awarded Rs. 1,17,400/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. On November 23, 1986, the deceased Umedaram was going on his motor cycle No. RJC 1591 from Mahavir Nagar, Banner to Banner City. When he came in front of the factory of Jiwana Ram Choudhary (under construction), Nishan truck No. RJC 1261 came from the opposite direction with an excessive speed on its wrong side and dashed against the said motor cycle which was going on its correct side of the road. The truck was being driven by its driver Tej Singh, respondent No. 10. As a result thereof, Umedaram died on the spot and his motor cycle was badly damaged. Report was immediately lodged in the police station by Bega Ram, PW 2. A case under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, was registered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1992Raj181; 1991(2)WLC196
ORDER1. The main question involved inall these writ petitions relates to vires ofSection 4B(3) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and Rule 4CC of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951. Arguments were, therefore, heard jointly for all these writ petitions on the request of learned counsel for the parties and they are being disposed of by a common order.2. We may refer to the facts of Writ Petition No. 2663/89 Inder Kumar Goyal v. State of Rajasthan and others.3. Petitioner Inder Kumar Goyal is holding three contract carriage permits in his own name, details of which have been set out in para 2 of the writ petition. Vehicle No. RNP 2964 (1988 model) is owned by the petitioner and it is registered in his name. He is having All India Tourist Permit No. RTA/79/27/1, which has been renewed up to 30th May, 1992. The statement of the petitioner is that he has deposited road tax as well as special road tax as prescribed under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992CriLJ810; 1991(1)WLN476; 1991(2)WLN577
R.S. Verma, J.1. The question referred to this bench is:Whether Under Section 397(2), Cr. P.C. the expression 'interlocutory order' covers the framing of the charge during the trial or not.2. The petitioner before us is accused of sheltering Pakistani nationals in contravention of Sections 13 and 14 of the Foreigners Act. Suffice for the purposes of this discussion that the learned trial Magistrate, after having taken due cognizance of the aforesaid offences, framed charge against the, petitioner for the aforesaid offences on 22-4-89. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, he filed a revision petition before this Court Under Section 397, Cr. P.C. against the order framing the charge. The office raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition. The matter was placed before a learned single Judge of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before the learned single Judge that the objection had been raised by the offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992ACJ71
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:(a) That your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit and accept this writ petition and pass an order under Section 92-A of the Act of 1939 (now Section 140 of the Act of 1988) to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 25.000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 5.7.1985.(b) That the record of the case titled as 'Gaindi Devi v. Mohd. Mian' pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alwar be called for.(c) That this case be transferred to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur and the direction be issued to dispose it expeditiously.(d) That all the District and Sessions Judges of the districts in Rajasthan be instructed to pay due attention to the matters of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act and particularly pass the interim order to give relief to the victims of the unfortunate accidents and thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(2)WLC597; 1991(1)WLN237
M.R. Calla, J.1. These three cases involve common questions of law and facts and hence we propose to decide all these three cases by this common judgment.2. The facts of these cases present a typical lis between the in-serving Engineers seeking appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment and the Engineer graduates in the open market who are also seeking appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment. This Us between the candidates of two different types both seeking direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers has engaged the attention of this Court because of the dismal fact that although the scheme of the Rules, namely, the Rajasthan Service Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to the Rules of 1954) provides for both the names of recruitment on the post of Assistant Engineer i.e. by direct recruitment as well as promotion, there has been no direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Eng...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(2)WLC564; 1991(1)WLN270
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This writ petition is initially filed by the petitioner against the State of Rajasthan, The Chief Engineer Public Works Department Rajasthan, Jaipur and Shri J.K. Soni on 6.1.1987 alongwith number of annexures and affidavits.2. A reply to the show cause notice was filed by the respondent No. 3 on 30.3.87 t alongwith certain annexures. On behalf of respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan, a reply was filed on 13.7.87. The petitioner filed separate rejoinders along with certain documents to the replies filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 on 7.10.87 A reply to the rejoinder was filed by respondent No. 3 on 21.10.87 and to that, a further rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 8.11.87 alongwith certain documents. The respondents thereafter filed a rejoinder to the reply on 13.11.87. An additional affidavit was also filed by respondent No. 3 Shri J.K. Soni on 17.11.87. A rejoinder to the reply of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was filed by the petitioner on 3.2.88 and a reply to the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(2)WLN15
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This writ petition is initially filed by the petitioner against the State of Rajasthan. The Chief Engineer Public Works Department Rajasthan Jaipur and Shri J.K. Soni on 6.1.1987 alongwith number of annexures and affidavits.2. A reply to the show cause notice was filed by the respondent No. 3 on 30.3.87 alongwith certain annexures. On behalf of respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan, a reply was filed on 13.7.87. The petitioner filed separate rejoinders alongwith certain documents to the replies filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 on 7.10.87. A reply to the rejoinder was filed by respondent No. 3 on 21.10.87 and to that, a further rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 8.11.87 alongwith certain documents. The respondents thereafter filed a rejoinder to the reply on 13.11.87. An additional affidavit was also filed by respondent No. 3 Shri J.K. Soni on 17.11.87. A rejoinder to the reply of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was filed by the petitioner on 3.2.88 and a reply to the rejo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(1)WLN410
V.S. Dave, J.1. The facts leading to these appeals & revision demonstrate as to how the criminal courts are used for working the vengeance and personal vendetta. The State as well as the complainant Bhagwat Prasad approached this Court praying that 23 accused respondents in these cases be convicted and sentenced for offences Under Sections 147, 452, 302/149 IPC etc. and the acquittal recorded in their favour by the trial Court vide judgment dated 5-4-89 be set aside, while four accused appellants in SB Criminal Appeal No. 304/89 Hansraj, Tara Chand, Hari Ram and Mool Chand challenged their conviction for offence Under Section 323 IPC. After being convicted Under Section 323 IPC, they had been given benefit of probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.2. On 1st July, 1985 Bhagwat Prasad (PW 1) lodged a report at Police Station Kherthal district Alwar at 11.30 P.M. where in it was alleged by him that at about 8.30 p.m. all the 23 accused formed an unlawful assembly and...
Tag this Judgment!