Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-31-1991
Reported in : 1992(1)WLC268; 1991WLN(UC)451
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r). CPC read with Section 104, CPC against the order of the Distt. Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff appellant, under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Order 9 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Section 151 C.P.C. whereby the petitioner-plaintiff had prayed for stay of encashment of the bank guarantee.2. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') accepted an offer of the appellant company for supply of 10 of ACSR Zebra Conductor, on the terms and conditions contained in the purchase order. A formal contract agreement was executed in writing between the parties on 22.10.1979. The said contract contained an arbitration clause mentioned in Section 26 thereof. As per the term No. 16 of the contract, the appellant was to furnish security deposit for the due fulfilment of the contract equivalent to 5% of the contract value in the form of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-30-1991
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
Decided on : Apr-30-1991
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
Decided on : Nov-25-1991
Reported in : 1991(2)WLC318; 1991WLN(UC)445
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Civil Judge, Nagaur dt. 17.9.90 whereby he has allowed the application Under Section 10 and 151 C.P.C. filed by the non-petitioner and stayed the proceedings of civil suit No. 11/79.2. Brief Facts of this case are that the petitioner purchased the disputed house from Badridas for Rs. 6000/-. Which was under mortgage with one Kishanlal Sita Ram who gave it to Raja Ram, the non-petitioner on rent 68/- per month. The petitioner paid full amount of the mortgager. He had also given notice to the tenant Raja Ram to vacate the house but Raja Ram did not vacate the house. Thus, the plaintiff filed a suit No. 11/79 on 1.6.79 for eviction against the non-petitioner Raja Ram. Brothers of Badridas being aggrieved by the sale of house to Sheeyam Sunder filed a suit No. 24/82 for partition as the same could not be sold by Badridas alone as the house is ancestral one. They have also prayed that Raja Ram should be declared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-22-1991
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ1014Raj
Inder Sen Irani, J. 1. In these writ petitions a common question of law has been raised, therefore, all the petitions are decided by one order.2. It has been prayed in these writ petitions to quash the reference order made in each petition and to declare that after passing of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for brevity 'the Act, 1970'), the Government of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to make any reference as made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the I.D. Act') in respect of Contract Labour.3. The factual details and number of annexures are given as mentioned in Writ Petition No. 1250/1980. Briefly stated, the petitioner-company has a unit at Kota, Rajasthan, consisting of two factories known as Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals and Shriram Vinyl & Chemicals Industries which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of PVC, Caustic Soda, Urea etc. The petitioner company employs independent contractors to do jobs which are intermittent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-26-1991
Reported in : [1993]88STC25(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. In both the above writ petitions identical questions have come up for adjudication and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 687 of 1991 is by P.N. Dhoot Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur (for short, 'the investment company') through its director, Shri V.N. Dhoot. The investment company is manufacturing washing machines of household at its Aurangabad factory. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 970 of 1991 is by Dome Bell Investment Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'the company') through one of its directors Shri P.N. Dhoot. The company is manufacturing colour television sets at Noida factory. The investment company as well as the company are transferring the manufactured products to different branches situated in different States which are its selling points and such branches are registered in their respective States in sales tax laws as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act'). So far as the investm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-27-1991
Reported in : (1994)IIILLJ528Raj; 1991(1)WLN256; 1991(2)WLN99
J.R. Chopra, J.1 This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge of this Court dated 4.9.1989 whereby the learned single judge has maintained the award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Jodhpur dated 16.6.1989.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this special appeal briefly stated are : that the labourers of the petitioner-company went on strike on 11.12.1986 and with the intervention of the Labour Commissioner, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur the matter was settled and the strike was called off on 22.4.1987. On 22.4.1987, all the labourers of the petitioner company along with the office bearers of the respondent Union were taken back on duty. However, on the very next day, a chargesheet was served on Shri Jabarsingh, Bhanwarsingh, Ranidansingh, Kanti Prasad, Bhoor Singh, and Markandey on 23.4.1987. A reply was filed by the aforesaid labourers and it was prayed that they should be allowed to be defended by the Trade Union Leader...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-04-1991
Reported in : 1992(3)WLC661; 1991(1)WLN291
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 3.12.1990 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4867 of 1990, Radhey Shyam Soni v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. referred the following questions for determination by a larger Bench to be constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice:(1) Whether in view of the fact that the parties have succumbed to the jurisdiction of the Family Court and have not raised any objection about non-compliance of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the learned Judge of the Division Bench in Dr. Suresh Kumar Bakliwal case (supra) and other connected cases were authorised to formulate the questions which they have formulated and answered in the pending appeals against the judgment of a family court specially as regards the constitution and functioning of Family Court?(2) Whether functioning of the Family Courts can be brought to a stand still simply because certain Rules have not been framed either by the High Court or by the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-21-1991
Reported in : 1991(1)WLN1
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioners, by this writ petition, have prayed that the respondent University may be directed to accept the tees for pursuing the studies of M.B.A. Course and allow the petitioners to avail the admission granted to them by making necessary arrangements for imparting instructions to them for grant of a Post-graduate degree of M.B.A. It is further prayed that orders be issued to the respondent University to produce the orders where by the selections have been cancelled and declare such orders to be invalid and may be quashed.2. The applications were invited for admission to the prestigious course known as Master of Business Administration (for short M.B.A.) in July, 1990. The petitioners applied for the same. A written test was held on 24.9.1990. Thereafter, the candidates were called for Group Discussion and interviews were held on 25th and 26th September, 1990. Thereafter, on 26.9.1990 the petitioners were selected and they were provisionally admitted to the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-03-1991
Reported in : 1991(1)WLN583
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition by Dr. Pradeep Jain, Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to the State of Rajasthan, to make promotion to the post of Reader, Dental(Orthodontia), after considering the petitioner for the said post and to promote the petitioner to that post.2. The petitioner passed the examination of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) in the year 1982, from the University of Lucknow; and thereafter, he passed the examination of Master of Dental Suregery (Orthodontia) from the same University, in the year 1985. The petitioner was recruited to the post of Lecturer in Dentistry (Orthodontia) through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC); and was by an order of the Government of Rajasthan in Medical & Health Department, dated Apr. 2, 86 (Ann. 2), appointed on the said post. The petitioner was confirmed as Lecturer in Dentistry (Orthodontia) by order of the Government dated May 15,'88 (Ann. 3). The present writ petition was ...
Tag this Judgment!