Partly allowed

Raju and Ors. v. Mangilal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2016CMA/638/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court partly allowed appeals against an impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. It quashed the Tribunal's decision on specific issues, finding they failed to appreciate facts and grounds. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing after issuing notice to all parties, with a specific date fixed for appearance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award on specified issues quashed; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh hearing after notice; parties directed to appear before Tribunal on 5.10.2016.

Raju and Ors. Vs Mangilal and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

¶3

J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.638/2006 (Raju & Anr. Versus Mangilal & Ors.)

¶4

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.637/2006 (Raju & Anr. Versus Phool Chand & Ors.)

¶5

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19.07.2016

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Kamal Gupta, counsel for the appellants Mr. JS Chouhan, counsel for respondents

¶8

Since both these appeals have been filed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard together and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being decided finally at this stage.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has not taken into consideration the grounds which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeal(s). The finding of learned Tribunal on issue no.1, 3 & 4 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal qua aforesaid issue(s) be quashed and set aside and the matter should be remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh qua aforesaid issue(s) in the light of grounds which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeal(s).

¶10

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents although has opposed the same, but has requested that the learned Tribunal may be directed to hear him/them at the time of deciding the matter afresh on the aforesaid issue/s, and he may be permitted to raise the objections to the grounds, as have been raised in

¶11

¶12

the appeal.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment and award.

¶14

In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has not appreciated the facts of the case and the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) by way of the aforesaid appeal(s) in a proper manner and passed the impugned judgment and award surreptitiously. Thus, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by this court.

¶15

In the result, the appeal(s) is/are partly allowed; the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal qua aforesaid issue(s) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh qua aforesaid issue(s) as early as possible, in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) by way of the aforesaid appeal(s) and the judgment(s) to be cited by learned counsel for the parties, if any, after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them.

¶16

Both the parties have requested for a specific date for their appearance before the Tribunal, hence they are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 5.10.2016.

¶17

Record, if any, be sent back.

¶18

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶19

¶20

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

¶21

Dilip Khandelwal PA

Raju and Ors. v. Mangilal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju and Ors. v. Mangilal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sohan Singh and Ors. Vs Omveer Singh and Ors.

Virandavan Vs Amar Chand and Ors.

Kamal Kumar Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Lali Devi and Others Vs Raju Lal Panchal and Others

Abdul Khalik Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.