Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-03-2006
Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj1421
mohammad rafiq, j.1. these writ petitions have been filed by the state government against different awards passed by the learned labour court, but the issues raised therein are substantially same not only on law but on facts as well therefore they were taken up for hearing together and are now being decided by this common judgment.2. in s.b. civil writ petition no. 616/2002, a reference was made to the labour court by the appropriate government on 3. 6. 1997 for adjudication on the question whether the removal of the respondent workman by the management principal, medical officer, general hospital, prarapgarh was legal and justified and if not, what relief and amount the workman is entitled to. the case of the workman before the learned labour court was that she was appointed on the post of ward boy on 28.5.1992 and worked with the management up to 31.12.1995 on which date she was removed by verbal order. even though she has completed more than 240 days in their service, the management did not make compliance of the provisions of section 25f of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (in short the act of 1947) prior to removal of the workman. the management contested the claim of the workman and contended that she was working only on part time basis for two to three hours in a day and a part time employee did not fall within the ambit of workman in the meaning of section 2(s) of the act of 1947. the learned labour court on the basis of evidence in the case concluded that the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-08-2006
Reported in : AIR2006Raj163
orderdinesh maheshwari, j.1. having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this court is satisfied that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order dated 21-1-2006 (annexure-6) and in rejecting the prayer for stay of the suit proceedings under section 10 of the code of civil procedure ('cpc'); and this writ petition being totally devoid of substance deserves to be rejected.2. brief facts relevant for the present purpose are that the petitioners are defendants in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the respondent no. 2. a comprehension of the plaint averments (annex. 1) makes it evident that the dispute relates to a piece of land situated at 7e chhoti, tehsil sriganganagar in murraba no. 14, khatedar of the said land, rawata ram son of mana ram, sold 2 bighas of land through his power of attorney rahul chhabra on 17-11-1998 to mahendra singh and hansraj; and in such sale, the land in dispute comprised in kila no. 23/2 admeasuring 5 biswas and 20 biswansi was included; mutation was effected in the name of the purchasers and thereafter the said purchasers, mahendra singh and hansraj, sold the land to the plaintiff (respondent no. 2) on 10-8-1999 and it was duly mutated in her name too. it appears that the same power of attorney of rawata ram executed another sale deed on 15-10-1998 for a land in the same murraba no. 14 admeasuring 2 bighas 19 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-11-2006
Reported in : 2007(1)WLN400
rajesh balia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties. learned additional advocate general states that since the matter hinges on interpretation of the notification, no reply is necessary.2. the sole controversy raised in this case is about the fact whether the petitioner is a member of other backward class as notified under the rajasthan. petitioner was born and educated in uttar pradesh and the caste certificate issued in her name described her caste to be 'chhipi' in her maiden status. by marriage she became domiciled of rajasthan and was married to atma ram 'chhipa' her domicile and caste certificate issued by rajasthan described her caste as 'chhipa'.3. she had applied to participate in the selection for appointment as medical officer in pursuance of advertisement dated 05.07.2005 issued by the respondents and she was issued her identity card in the category of obc (women) candidate. however, when the result was declared, she was not called for interview by rejecting her candidature as a candidate against the reserved seat for obc (women) by stating that her candidature does not come under obc (women) seat and she does not pass amongst the general candidates, therefore, her application was rejected and it was communicated that it was not possible for the rpsc to call her for interview.4. this led to file the writ petition which was dismissed in limine by the learned single judge on the ground that it has not been shown to the court that caste 'chhipi' is in the list .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-20-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2307; 2006(4)WLC23
h.r. panwar, j.1. this criminal appeal under section 374 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the code' hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.2003 passed by the special judge, n.d.s.p. act cases, rajgarh, district churu (for short, 'the trial court' hereinafter) in sessions case no. 4/2082, whereby the trial court convicted both the appellants under section 8/15 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (for short, 'the ndps act' hereinafter) and sentenced each of them to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. one lac each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2-1/2 , years rigorous imprisonment. aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, convicting and sentencing the appellants, both the appellants have filed the instant appeal.2. 1 have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the public prosecutor appearing for the state. carefully gone through the judgment and order impugned, as also the record of the trial court. i have also scrutinjved, scanned and evaluated the evidence on record.3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that both the independent motbir witnesses p.w.i ladu ram and p.w. 2 om prakash have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. learned counsel contended that there is a contradiction with regard to sampling of the contraband poppy husk recovered from' the appellants and also the samples taken therefrom. learned counsel .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-21-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2266; 2006(4)WLC210
rajesh balia, j.1. in newspaper 'lok sammat' published from sri ganganagar dated 24.2.2001, the following headline was published.2. under the detailed report dated 24.2.2001, it was stated firstly that addressing hundreds of workers assembled in front of collectorate, sriganganagar, the leaders of communist party levelled sharp allegations against judiciary. incriminating statements were attributed to het ram beniwal, navrang choudhary, bhuramal swami, advocate, hardeep singh and sheopat singh. following statements were attributed to the respective speakers:3. the petitioner raghuveer singh considering that aforesaid statement reported in 'lok sammat' scandalized and lowered the authority of the court and tended to scandalize the court and tended to lower the authority of the court by creating apprehension in the minds of people regarding integrity, ability and fairness of the court in administering the laws and justice as well as affecting fair trial of a pending casein the courts below has resulted in criminal contempt of court. he therefore, moved the learned advocate general seeking his sanction for moving motion of contempt before this court. the learned advocate general of the state of rajasthan vide his letter dtd. 16.1.2002 considered the application and gave his consent in writing to file contempt petition against the non applicants.4. the non-applicant no. 1 shiv kumar swami is the editor of the newspaper 'lok sammat', sri ganganagar. respondents no. 2 to 6 are .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-06-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj1932; 2006(2)WLC483
shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the six appellants before us were tried by the special judge sc/st (prevention of atrocities) act jhalawar in sessions case no. 6/1998. learned judge vide judgment dated january 30, 2003 found the appellants guilty and convicted them as under:shyoji, ramchandra and mangi lal;under section 147 ipc:each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of rs. 500/- in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment.under section 323/149 ipc:each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of rs. 500/-in, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment.under section 324/149 ipc:each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment.under section 325/149 ipc:each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.under section 302/149 ipc:each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.amar lal, devkishan and madan lal:under section 148 ipc:each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.under section 323/149 ipc:each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment.under section 324/149 ipc:each to suffer .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-31-2006
Reported in : 135CompCas495(Raj); 77SCL28(Raj); 2006(3)WLC565
shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the applicant-company m/s. spark plugs (i.) ltd. through the official liquidator filed the present application for quashing the order dated october 7, 2005, passed by the recovery officer, drt-1, delhi. the applicant-company was ordered to be wound up by this court vide order dated august 6, 2004, on the recommendation of the bifr. the official liquidator took possession of the land, building, plant and machinery, etc., situated at matsaya industrial area, village guleta, district alwar. the debts recovery tribunal-1 allowed the recovery application filed by the bank of india. the recovery officer issued order on february 10, 2005, restraining the applicant-bank from transferring or charging the properties of company in liquidation. the recovery officer also issued notice under rule 83 of the second schedule of the income-tax act read with sections 25-28 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 (for short '1993 act'). thereafter, vide notice dated march 28, 2005, the recovery officer informed that may 17, 2005, has been fixed for drawing up the proclamation of sale and settling the terms thereof. the official liquidator submitted reply to the notice. the recovery officer allowed the request of the bank of india vide its order dated october 7, 2005, for putting the property on public auction and rejecting the written objections filed by the official liquidator. the order of the recovery officer is based on the judgment .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-17-2006
Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj893
narendra kumar jain, j.1. this second appeal under section 100 of the code of civil procedure has been filed by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1987 passed by the district judge, bharatpur, in civil appeal no. 27/1983, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 1.3.1993 of the additional munsif & judicial magistrate no. 1, bharatpur, in civil suit no. 87/1977, was set aside, whereby the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.2. the first appellate court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession in respect of two basis land of khasra no. 333.3. while admitting the second appeal on 24.7.1989, this court formulated following substantial questions of law:(1) whether on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case, the plaintiff respondent has at all been able to establish that the defendant had on june 12, 1973 trespassed over land measuring 2 biswa out of land measuring 6 biswas of khasra no. 1300/1 (300) as detailed and described in para 1 of the plaint?(2) whether the suit was exclusively triable by revenue court and the civil court had no jurisdiction to try it.4. i have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and minutely scanned the impugned judgments as well as the record of both the courts below.5. learned counsel for the defendant-appellants contended that the dispute 2 biswas land is not a part of khasra no. 333 belonging to plaintiff-respondent, and the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-14-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)WLN258
prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this appeal is against the divorce decree dt. 19.04.2001 passed by the court of additional district judge no. 2, hanumangarh in civil misc. case no. 94/1996. by the divorce petition, the applicant/respondent sought divorce against the non-applicant/appellant on the ground of cruelty.3. brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant wife and respondent husband took place on 09.07.1989. out of the wedlock, one daughter was born to the appellant on 05.08.1991. according to the allegation levelled by the respondent husband, the appellant was of cruel nature and she was more inclined towards her mother and father rather than the respondent and the respondent's family. she never treated the respondent's house as her own house. it is also submitted that a gold ring and rs. 4,200/- were given to the respondent by the appellant's parents at the time of ceremony before marriage but immediately after marriage, the appellant took the said gold ring and rs. 4,200/- and gave it to her parents. it is also stated that the appellant used to hand over substantial part of the respondent's income to her mother and father. according to the respondent, he tried to live with the appellant but the appellant's mother and father also started misbehaving with the respondent and also started abusing him, which caused serious mental cruelty. out of this mental torture, the respondent started living with his wife and daughter .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-07-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1071; 2006(2)WLC288
gopal krishna vyas, j.1. by the present petition moved under section 482, cr.p.c. the petitioners seek to challenge order dated 6.8.1999 whereby the learned judl. magistrate, kuchaman city proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for offences under sections 148, 447, 427 and 379, i.p.c. in criminal case no. 68/99 and, so also, order dated 6.9.2005 passed by the revisional court of learned addl. sessions judge, parbatsar. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial court has erred in law in taking cognizance of alleged offences against the petitioners in the absence of sufficient evidentiary material on record. he submitted that the case is of civil nature because the land in question was sold to the petitioners by the complainant vide an agreement to sale and the petitioners have filed suit in which stay order was granted upon the application filed under order 39, rules 1 & 2, c.p.c. in which restraining the complainant and other persons it is ordered that they will not sell the land in question situated in khasra no. 456, rakba 1.45 hectare moja jasrana and the state government as well as registration department have been restrained from registering the sale document, if any, executed by non-petitioner no. 2. further, while ordering status quo with regard to the land in question, the court has ordered that no mutation shall be made in favour of mukana ram. it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that fir was also filed for .....Tag this Judgment!