Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-04-2002
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR1178]; RLW2003(1)Raj109; 2002(3)WLN1
Chauhan, J.1. Though the matter was listed today on the application moved under Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter was heard finally.2. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.10.2001 (Annex. 4) by which the appropriate Government has withdrawn the case from Labour Court, Jodhpur and transferred the same to Labour Court, Kota in exercise of its powers under Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947). The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed without issuing any notice to him and no reason has been recorded by the appropriate Government while transferring the said case. Thus, the order is liable to be quashed.3. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-04-2002
Reported in : II(2002)ACC697; 2004ACJ835; AIR2002Raj272; 2002(2)WLC679; 2002(5)WLN544
Sharma, J.1. Ordinarily High Court does not entertain the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for mere enforcement of a claim under a contract of insurance. But where the writ petition is filed in a case where an insurer has repudiated the claim, 'the High Court has to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the dispute raised and the nature of the inquiry necessary to be made for determination of the question raised and other relevant factors before taking a decision whether it should entertain the writ petition or reject it as not maintainable. It has also to be kept in mind that in case an insured or nominee of the deceased insured is refused relief merely on the ground that the claim relates to contractual rights and obligations and he/she is driven to a long drawn litigation in the civil court it will cause serious prejudice to the claimant other beneficiaries of the policy. The pros and cons of the matter in the contest of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR532]; 2002(5)WLC55; 2002(5)WLN126
Madan, J.1. With the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been heard finally at the order stage itself while considering the application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), is being disposed of by this order.2. It is a clear case of contractual appointment, where services of the respondent-workman were terminated on expiry of the contract period. From the recital of the agreement between the parties, it was made very clear to the respondents-workman that on the expiry of six months period to which he had agreed and accepted, unless mutually extended, the term would automatically come to an end. It has not been disputed by the parties that no further extension was given after the expiry of fixed term appointment. This being the admitted position, the question of applicability of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act does not arise. The learned Tribunal had grossly overlooked this aspect of the matter whil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-15-2002
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj171; 2002(5)WLC455
Madan, J.1. The petitioner as per his case was engaged as Electrical Supervisor on work charge basis by Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the Authority' of JDA) (respondent) with effect from 1.12.1983. His work was discontinued after some time as it was a case of contractual appointment for a fixed period and he worked on the said post upto February, 1984. Thereafter in January, 1985 he was again engaged on muster roll basis and he worked as such for the period January, 1985, February, 1985, March, 1985 and May 1985 only. Thereafter he was time and again engaged by the respondent Authority for a few days as and when required. Thereafter on 27.7.1987 by an order passed by the Executive Engineer of the Authority, it was directed that the petitioner should not be engaged on muster roll basis as he has been working with the Authority for some time and from date of issuance of the aforesaid order, no functionary of the Authority shall henceforth be authorised to give appointment afre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-19-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)WLC198; 2003(1)WLN30
..... remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. the court does not act in vain.44. in life insurance corporation of india v. raguuvendra sheshgiri rao kulkarni (1997) 8 scc 460, the apex court explained the difference of a permanent employee ..... permitted to be raised in the second appeal. the parameters within which a new legal plea could be permitted to be raised, are specifically stated in sub-section (5) of section 100. under the proviso, the court should be 'satisfied' that the case involves a substantial question of law and not a mere question of law. the reason for ..... gap adhoc or fortuitous. but in the instant case, the petitioner does not fulfil the condition of continuity for a fairly long period and the said judgment is not applicable.53. thus, in view of the above, i am of considered opinion that the services of the appellant could be terminated without complying with the principles of natural ..... supreme court considered large number of its earlier judgments, including sree meenakshi mills ltd. v. commissioner of income tax 0044/1956 : [1956]1scr691 , and held that where the question of decision is whether certain profit is made and shown in the name of certain intermediaries, were, in fact, profit actually ..... to forfeiture of any legal right.43. in ravi s. naik v. union of india : [1994]1scr754 , the hon'ble apex court has placed reliance on the observations made in malloch v. aberdden corporation 1971 (2) all e.r .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-09-2002
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR39]; RLW2003(2)Raj1225; 2002(4)WLC106; 2002(5)WLN595
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Single Judge dated 10.9.2001 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 154/2001 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 155/2001, which arose under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 in respect of an order passed by E.S.I. Court on an application made by the Board.3. In these two appeals, by notification dated 14th March, 1985 issued by the Central Government the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the E.S.I. Act'), has been extended to Hanumangarh Junction and Hanumangarh Town. As a result of the said notification E.S.I. Scheme became applicable and operative in the aforesaid areas w.e.f. 16.3.85.4. After the extension of the provisions of the Act to the area of Hanumangarh Town and Hanumangarh Junction, the Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation, inspected the premises of the Assistant Engineer R.S.E.B. (O & M), Hanumangarh Town, in the presence of Shri Gurjeet Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-10-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)WLC674; 2003(2)WLN435
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.12.1992 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 28,000/- in favour of appellant claimants (for short 'the claimants' hereinafter referred to) and against respondents. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that on 5.5.1990 at about 2.30 P.M. Rata Ram was proceeding on bicycle from Bali to Shrisela. When he reached near Officer's Colony, Bali and was opposite to newly constructed Krashi Mandi, at that relevant time a jeep bearing No. RRT 6098 came from behind, which was driven by respondent No. 1 Sesa Ram at great speed, rashly and negligently, hit the bicycle of Rata Ram, due to which Rata Ram fell down on 'Kachi Patari' (B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-16-2002
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1553; 2002(5)WLC67; 2002(5)WLN426
Panwar, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dt. 27.1.94 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/-in favour or appellant-claimant in M.A.C. Case No. 50/91 for the death of her husband Poonam Chand including interest and Rs. 45,000/- in favour of the appellant-claimant for the death of her son aged about 12 years in M.A.C. Case No, 52/91 including interest.2. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimants (for short 'the claimants') have preferred the aforesaid two separate appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.3. Brief facts stated to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these two appeals are that on 5.5.1991 at about 1.30 P.M., deceased Poonam Chand, his son Niraj alias Pintu and Om Prakash were proceeding on a scooter from Kitnod to Balotra. After co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-28-2002
Reported in : [2002]258ITR645(Raj)
R. Balia, J.1. These two income-tax references arise out of a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in I. T. A. No. 708/709 (JP) of 1984 for successive assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and common questions arise in these two reference applications except difference in the amount in question in each assessment year. The facts in the context of which these questions have been raised remain the same, therefore, they are being heard and decided together.2. The assessee-company was manufacturing and selling soft drinks under a licence issued by Coca-Cola Export Corporation, USA. For the manufacture of the soft drinks, the concentrate was provided by the Coco-Cola Export Corporation. The arrangement of providing concentrate by the company was disrupted for reasons, which are not germane. As a result of which the bottles with marking of 'Coca-Cola' and 'Fanta' the two products, in which soft drink was marketed earlier remained with the assessee. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-28-2002
Reported in : (2002)178CTR(Raj)42
Rajesh Balia, J.These two income-tax references arise out of a common order passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in ITA No. 708/709(Jp)1984 for successive assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and common questions arise in these two reference applications except difference in the amount in question in each assessment year. The facts in the context of which these questions have been raised remain the same, therefore, they are being heard and decided together .2. The assessee-company was manufacturing and selling soft drinks under a licence issued by M/s Coca-Cola Export Corporation, USA. For the manufacture of the soft drinks, the concentrate was provided by the Coca-Cola Export Corporation. The arrangement of providing concentrate by the company was disrupted for reasons, which are not germane. As a result of which the bottles with marking of 'Coca-Cola' and 'Fanta' the two products, in which soft drink was marketed earlier remained with the assessee. As a result of disruption o...
Tag this Judgment!