Rajasthan Court April 1976 Judgments
Swaroop Singh and anr. Etc. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1655
V.P. Tyagi, Ag. C.J.1. Learned Single Judge has referred these three cases to this Bench for authoritative pro-nountement of a Division Bench on a question whether proceedings taken under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, fall within the ambit of the definition of the term 'inquiry' as used in Section 309 of the Code. All these references involve a common question of law and therefore they are being disposed of by this single order.2. The police put up a challan before the committing court under Section 302/ 149, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate instead of committing the accused persons to the Court of Session adjourned the proceedings under Section 209 and remanded the accused persons to custody. In an application for granting of bail the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised this question whether the Magistrate before whom the challan has been put up has jurisdiction to adjourn the proceedings under Section 209, Cr. P.C. and if he does so then can he remand th...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Joshi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN209
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is a special appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated October 8, 1974 whereby the writ petition filed by Shri Mohan Lal Mujoo S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 163/1969 against the State of Rajasthan and Ors. was allowed.2. Shri Mujoo filed a writ petition on February 10, 1969 alleging therein that be was appointed as Resident Assistant Master in the Sadul Public School at Bikaner on November 1, 1949s in the pay scale of Rs. 165 300. The pay scale was, later on, revised to 200--10--360. He was than promoted as Headmaster on officiating basis of a High School on August 27, 1955 and was then substantively appointed as such on October 31, 1958. By order dated January 8, 1960 be was confirmed as Head Master of Higher Secondary School with effect from August 12, 1957. On September 22, 1958 the Director of Education published a list of Head Masters selected for Multipurpose Higher Secondary Schools in order of seniority, and Shri Mujoo was shown at No. 46. ...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chandra Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN201
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by Umesh Chandra against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Jaipur City, dated 29th JUNE, 1974, by which to petitioner's player for being tried for an offence of murder in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Children Act, was rejected.2. The petitioner Umesh Chandra, who was alleged to be a minor having not attained the age of 16 years, at the time of commission of the aforesaid offence, was charged with having committed the murder of Ajaisingh son of Nand Singh whom he was said to have kidnapped on 12th March, 1973, at 11 a.m. from Gandhi Pathshala Chak u, in order that he might be murdered A report of the incident was lodged with the. police at police station, Newai, on 12th March, 1973, at about 2 p m. The police registered a criminal case under Sections 363 and 364, IPC against the petitioner and made usual investigation into it. The petitioner was...
Tag this Judgment!Nathulal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj202; 1976(9)WLN238
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J.1. These three writ petitions arise out of similar facts and circumstances and similar questions of law are raised therein and as such I propose to dispose them of by a common order.2. The petitioner in each one of the three writ petitions, was an existing operator, plying his vehicle on a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Asind-Deo-garh route in the State of Rajasthan. The State Transport Undertaking, known as Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'the Corporation') published a proposed scheme of nationalisation under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of Udaipur--Beawar via Kailashpuri, Delwara, Nath-dwara, Kankroli, Gomti Daver-Kamlighat Choraha-Kamlighat, Deogarh, Barar, Bhim and Jasakhera route (hereinafter referred to as 'the notified route) and portions thereof. The proposed draft scheme of nationalisation was published by the Corporation vide its notification dated January ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Zoraster and Co. (Supplies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj190; 1976(9)WLN180
V.P. Tyagi, Ag. C.J. 1. S. Zoraster and Company (Supplies) Pvt. Ltd. has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the Union of India may be restrained by issuing a writ of prohibition from levying and collecting excise duty on their product, namely, woollen industrial felt under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was further prayed that the amount of Rs. 7,52,320.55 paise collected by the respondent as excise duty from the petitioner company be ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.2. The petitioner-company manufactures woollen felts at Jaipur. The woollen felts and allied product manufactured by the company, according to the petitioner, are used for industrial purposes, and not for wearing apparels and therefore it does not fall within the expression 'woollen fabrics' as used in Item No. 21 of Schedule I annexed to the Act under which the excise duty is charged.3. According to the averments made by th...
Tag this Judgment!Balu Mal Vs. J.P. Chandani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj14
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J.1. These two writ petitions arise out of the same set of facts and, therefore, it would be convenient to dispose them of by a common order. The case of the petitioner is that he and his son Suresh Kumar had some dealings in partnership with Dr. Khet Lakhani and his son Suresh Kumar (respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No, 1574 of 1972). In order to resolve the disputes which arose between the aforesaid parties relating to their partnership business, three persons, namely Shri J. P. Chandani, Shri Chandan Gir and Shri Daulat Ram were appointed as Arbitrators for effecting dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and division of assets, including moveable and immovable properties, alleged to be belonging to the partnership. Two of the aforesaid three Arbitrators, namely Shri J. P. Chandani and Shri Chandan Gir are alleged to have given an ex parte award on March 29, 1972.The aforesaid two Arbitrators are further alleged to have submitted an a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Basanti Devi and ors. Vs. Abdul Sattar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj239
Modi, J. 1. This is an application made on behalf of Smt. Basanti Devi and her minor son Prahlad under Order 20, Rule 3, Civil P. C. and Rule 88 (2) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Section 151, Civil P. C. 2. The facts which have given rise to this application may be shortly stated. Hiranand filed a second appeal in this Court under Section 100, Civil P. C. against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, dated February 27, 1973. This appeal was registered as S. B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 187 of 1973. It came up for hearing before the Hon'ble J.P. Jain, J. At the close of the hearing, the learned Judge dictated the judgment, to a shorthand writer in open Court on September 10, 1975, in presence of the learned counsel for the parties and dismissed the appeal. By the order of the learned Judge, the fact dismissing the appeal was recorded in the order sheet by the Reader of the Court on that very day, i.e. September 10, 1975. Before the transcript ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rajasthan Anushakti Karamchari Union and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN150
M.L. Joshi, J.1. In these two writ petitions the common question that arises for consideration is as to whether Rule 61(1) of Industrial Disputes Rules (Central) which prescribes time for filing application for recognition of a workman as a 'protected workman' is a Mandatory or is a directory one. The petitions are therefore being disposed of by a common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the point of controversy it will be appropriate to give first the material facts of both the petitions in brief.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 51/75.3. Rajasthan Anushakti Karamchari Union is a registered & recognised trade union functioning in the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Rawatbhata. This Union is affiliated to CITU, This Union was formed for the first time in September, 1974 The Union moved an application to the Chief Project Officer on 30-9-74 for declaring some of its office bearers as 'protected workmen'. Admittedly this application was filed after the time prescribed by Rule 61 of the Indus...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Singh Jhala Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)175
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Regional Transport Officer in the Transport Department of the Government of Rajasthan at Kota from July 21, 1960 to July, 1963. While the petitioner was working in that capacity, it appears that a Departmental Audit Party inspected his office and found certain financial irregularities in his office. On the basis of the report submitted by the Departmental Audit Party, the petitioner was suspended from service on February 5, 1983. However, he was reinstated on March 30, 1963 subject to the result of the disciplinary enquiry which was to be initiated against him. A disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Rules was initiated against the petitioner by the State Government and a memorandum dated April 25, 1963 along with a statement of charge and a statement of allegations, on the basis of which these charges were framed, was s...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhan Lal Vs. S.K. Durgia and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)188
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The only point urged in support of this writ petition is that the petitioner's case was not considered at me time of promoting respondent No. 1, Shri S.K. Durgia as Assistant Engineer, though the petitioner was also entitled to be considered for that post.2. The relevant facts may be stated as follows: The petitioner obtained Delima in Civil Engineering in the year 1959 and was appointed as Junior Engineer m the Rajasthan Stop Electricity B and (respondent No. 2) by as order dated 24th February, I960 He passed Section B of the Associate Membership Examination of Institute of Engineers, India (hereinafter referred to as A.M.I.E.) on 1st August. 1968 A seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) was prepared on 1st March, 1986 and the petitioner was shown at serial No. 9 (vide Annexure'2) The petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) on ad hoc basis on 1st May, 1971 and is still continuing in that capacity It is further alleged that respondent No. 1 Shri Du...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »