Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1991 Page 3 of about 48 results (0.009 seconds)

Nov 04 1991 (HC)

Chotey Khan Vs. Vimal Kumar and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-04-1991

Reported in : 1992(1)WLC529; 1991WLN(UC)262

r.s. kejriwal, j.1. this revision has been directed against the order dated 4.1.1991, passed by learned additional munsif magistrate no. 1 (north) kota, by which he allowed the amendment application submitted by the plaintiff non-petitioners in civil suit no. 101/82.2. the brief relevant facts of the case are that one madan lal predecessor of the non-petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of his personal necessity for starting cloth-business in the disputed shop. said sh. madan lal died during the pendency of the suit. after his death the non-petitioners submitted an application for amendment of plaint seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity of non-petitioners vimal kumar and rakesh kumar for running an electric-shop and also on the ground of nuisance. this application for amendment was allowed by the trial court vide its order dated 4.1.1991, which has been challenged by the defendant-petitioner in this revision.3. i have heard shri r.p. garg, learned counsel on behalf of the defendant petitioner and shri n.k. maloo for the non-petitioners.4. it has been argued by shri garg that the suit was at the stage of final arguments, when the application for amendment was filed, he argued that allowing the amendment, will change the whole nature of the suit. both the parties have to lead fresh evidence. he further argued that the ground of nuisance is a separate ground, which was not in the original plaint. he argued .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1991 (HC)

Raj. State Electricity Board Vs. Manohar Lal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-29-1991

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 and set aside the order of his compulsory retirement, dated 24th october, 1975.3. the respondent joined the service in erstwhile electrical and mechanical department of the government of rajasthan (now rajasthan state electricity board), as a meter-reader on 26th august, 1949. he was there after promoted as lower division clerk on 24th august, 1955 and further promoted as upper division clerk on 28th october, 1956. on 28th march, 1959 he was promoted as head clerk and in the same year he was .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1991 (HC)

Purushottamlal Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-06-1991

Reported in : 1991(2)WLN477

inder sen israni, j.1. this writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to have training for the post of laboratory technician in the laboratory technician training course.2. it is submitted by mr. g.s.fauzdar, learned counsel, that an advertisement (anx. 3) was published on 7.9.90 by respondent no. 1, inviting applications for training in the lab. technician training course. it is further submitted that the petitioner possessed all the required qualifications and applied to be selected for district bharatpur. however, when the merit list was published, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned therein, even though, he obtained 57.5% marks. respondent no. 4, whose name appeared at s. no. 14, was select even though, he had only 53.7% marks. the petitioner was not selected, as is evident from the return filed by the respondents, since his certificate of residence is alleged to be forged and that he was not bonafide resident of village gunsara, tehsil kumher, district bharatpur. it is pointed out that alongwith rejoinder, anx. rj/1 ration card of 1977 & anx. rj/2 ration card of 1980, were filed, wherein the name of the petitioner is shown. anx. rj/3 is a certificate of headmaster of government primary school, kumher, certifying that the petitioner is a bonafide resident of gunsara and he studied in the school from 6.12.73 to 15.5.78 upto 5th class. anx. rj/4 is also a certificate of headmaster, government secondary .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 1991 (HC)

Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-29-1991

Reported in : 1991(2)WLN486

inder sen israni, j.1. this writ petition has been filed with a prayer that it may be declared that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of eligibility certificate for exemption from sales tax-to a limit of rs. 4 crores in respect of expansion in case of any expansion/diversification made by the petitioner.2. the petitioner, a public limited company, manufactures polyproplyene spinning filament yarn. it is stated in the petition that the government of rajasthan had promulgated sales tax incentive scheme for industries, 1987 (for brevity, 'scheme, 1987) vide notification dated may 23, 1987 (anx. 1), under the rajasthan sales tax act and the central sales tax act, with a view to promote industrial growth in the state of rajasthan, particularly in the industrially backward areas. this was done with a view to attract entrepreneurs for setting up new industries and expanding the existing unit/diversification in the products. as per clause (2) of the said scheme, units have been divided into three different categories viz. (i) new industrial units; (ii) new industrial units covered by 1985 dispensation; & (iii) sick industrial units. the different districts of rajasthan were also divided into two categories with different ceiling limits to be allowed under the sales tax incentive scheme as per anx. 'c of the said scheme (anx. 1). it is submitted that the petitioner unit is covered by 1985 dispensation as defined in the scheme, 1987 (anx. 1), which came into force retrospectively .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1991 (HC)

Jaipur PolyspIn Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

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 problems and other troubles. it is a new company /establishment and is entitled to the benefits under section 16 of the payment of bonus act, 1965 (for short referred to as 'the bonus act'). there are two unions in the petitioner company, namely, rashtriya mill mazdoor sangh, reengus which is affiliated with indian national trade union congress and jaipur polyspin mazdoor union which is affiliated with c.i.t.u. the first union is a majority union and is recognised by the management. since the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1991 (HC)

Gurdeo Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-27-1991

Reported in : 1992(1)WLC267; 1991(1)WLN464

kanta bhatnagar, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated november 5, 1985 passed by the additional sessions judge, no. 2, hanumangarh by which appellant gurdeo singh was convicted under section 302 ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months r.i.2. succinctly narrated the prosecution case disclosed in the fir lodged by mohd. sadeek (pw 1), brother of deceased sharif khan, at police station, peelibanga at 1.00 p.m. is that his brother sharif khan was visiting the house of gurdeo singh. gurdeo singh suspected sharif khan of having illicit relations with his wife. that day i.e. on august 5, 1984 at about 10.00 a.m. he and his brother sharif khan were going to their field. gurdeo singh followed them and along with his brother proceeded ahead while talking with him. mohd. sadeek remained a little behind. gurdeo singh inflicted 'kassi' blow on the back side of the neck of sharif khan. he fell down. gurdeo singh then inflicted another blow on his neck. on the informant raising cry, gurdeo singh ran away. he went near his brother who was breathing slowly and after sometime died. he went to usman khan (pw 2) and told him the fact and along with him had come to the police station to lodge the report. the oral report was reduced into writing as ex. p/1 by a.s.i. jasbir singh (pw 4) of police station peelibanga. dy. s.p. mohan singh (pw 7) who had gone for inspection of the police station .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 1991 (HC)

Mohammad Ismail Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-09-1991

Reported in : 1993CriLJ1228; 1992(1)WLC754

navin chandra sharma, j.1. section 9(1)(b) and (d) of the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973, relevant for the purpose of this habeas corpus petition, is extracted below :9. restrictions on payments --(1) save as may be provided in and in accordance with any general or special exemption from the provisions of this sub-section which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the reserve bank, no person in, or resident in india, shall --(b) receive, otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside india.explanation: for the purposes of this clause, where any person in or resident in india receives any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside india through any other person (including an authorised dealer) without a corresponding in ward remittance from any place outside india, then, such person shall be deemed to have received such payment otherwise through an authorised dealer;(d) make any payment to, or for the credit of, any person by order or on behalf of any person resident outside india;2. the residential house of bashir khan detenu son of hazi noor khan of fatehpur (dist. sikar), was, on an information received, searched 25th jan., '91, by the officials of the central excise & customs, bikaner, and certain documents relating to 'hawala' payments were recovered and seized from his house. the officers of the customs, bikaner, also recorded his statements on 25th jan., '91, 26th jan., .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1991 (HC)

Amritlal Kaushik and anr. Vs. R.S.E.B. and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-16-1991

Reported in : 1991(2)WLC507; 1991(1)WLN12

j.r. chopra, j.1. these two writ petitions raise common questions of facts and law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.2. the facts, necessary to be noticed for the disposal or those two writ patitions briefly stated, are: that the respondent rajasthan state electricity board, jaipur (for short 'the board') issued an advertisement for selection to the post of junior engineer (electrical) in the year 1972, wherein the patitioner amritlal kaushik was selected. it further issued an advertisement for selection to the post of overseer (electrical) in the year 1976 and in that selection, petitioner kurbansingh was selected as overseer (electrical).3. it was submitted that earlier in the rajasthan state electricity board service of engineers (recruitment, promotion and seniority etc.) regulations, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the regulations'), there was only the post of junior engineer but in the year 1973, the regulations were aconded vide notification no.rseb/rules/d.33 dated october 15,1973 and it was provided that the words 'junior engineer' wherever appeared in the regulations be substituted by the words 'junior engineer/overseer'. thus, the selection of petitioner kurbansingh was made after this amendment in the regulations and the selection of petitioner amritlal kaushik was made prior to this amendment in the regulations. it was contended that when appointment was given to the petitioner amritlal kaushik, he was appointed on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1991 (HC)

Sunil Talwar Murlidhar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-22-1991

Reported in : 1992(1)WLC632; 1991WLN(UC)104

milap chandra jain, j.1. this writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents (i) to allow remission of rs. 24,43,449/- for the months of october and november, 1990, during which the petitioners were not able to open their liquor shops due to curfew, (ii) not to adjust any amount from the security amounts and (iii) not be cancel the licence on account of the non-payment of the said amount. the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.2. the petitioner no. 1 was granted licence under the rajasthan excise act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the act') for the period from april 1, 1989 to march 31, 1991 for the exclusive privilege for selling country liquor on 75 shops and 45 sub-shops. curfew was imposed in the entire municipal limits of jodhpur from october 24 to november 19, 1990. as a result thereof, the liquor shops could not be operated at all during the curfew periods. there was proportionate loss in retail sale of liquor. by letter dated november 21, 1990 (annexure 4), respondents were requested to grant remission of the said amount of rs. 24,43,499/-. it is apprehended that the demand for the said amount may be raised and it may be deducted from their security amounts. in similar circumstances, remission was granted to kota shops by order dated april 22, 1988 (annexure 5).3. in reply to the show casue notice, the respondents admit that the licences for the exclusive privilege for selling liquor of various kinds have been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1991 (HC)

Amritlal and anr. Vs. R.S.E.B. and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-16-1991

Reported in : 1991(2)WLN1

j.r. chopra, j.1. these two writ petitions raise common questions of facts and law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.2. the facts, necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these two writ petitions, briefly stated, are: that the respondent rajasthan state electricity board, jaipur (for short 'the board') issued an advertisement for selection to the post of junior engineer (electrical) in the year 1972, wherein the petitioner amritlal kaushik was selected. it further issued an advertisement for selection to the post of overseer (electrical) in the year 1976 and in that selection, petitioner kurbansingh was selected as overseer (electrical).3. it was submitted that earlier in the rajasthan state electricity board service of engineers (recruitment, promotion and seniority etc.) regulations, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the regulations'), there was only the post of junior engineer but in the year 1973, the regulations were amended vide notification no. rseb/rules/d. 33 dated october 15, 1973 and it was provided that the words 'junior engineer' wherever appeared in the regulations be substituted by the words 'junior engineer/overseer'. thus, the selection of petitioner kurbansingh was made after this amendment in the regulations and the selection of petitioner amritlal kaushik was made prior to this amendment in the regulations. it was contended that when appointment was given to the petitioner amritlal kaushik, he was .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //