Skip to content

Rajasthan Court November 1983 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Nov 08 1983

Rajendra Prasad Dube Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Nov-08-1983

Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)342

S.C. Agarwal, J1. Rajendra Prasad Dube, the petitioner in this writ petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitntion of India, is an employe of the Government of Rajasthan. He entered service on 23 12 1959 when he was appointed on the post of designer in the Industries Department of the Government of Rajasthan in the pay scale Rs. 110-225. By order (Ann. I) dated 19.9.1962 he was pronoted to the post of powerlloom Instructor in the pay scale of Rs. 1 5-335, which was scale No. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 1961, here in after referred to as the Revised Pay Rules). Due to abolition of certain posts the petitioner was declared as surplus. On the basis of the recommendations of the Absorption Committee constituted in accordance with the terms of the circular of the Government of Rajasthan dated 12.6.1962 relating to absorption of surplus personnel the petitioner was absorbed on the post of Teacher Grade II (crafts) by order (Ann. 2) dated 16.9.1963. As the pe...


Nov 07 1983

Virendra Lime Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Nov-07-1983

Reported in: 1984(3)ECC351; 1985(22)ELT690(Raj)

ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. All the petitioners in these writ petitions have sought the quashing of the Trade Notice No. 30/83-C.E. (I. Liment), dated 1st June, 1983, issued by the Additional Collector, Central Excise and Customs Collectorate, Jaipur, and the summons No. C.E. 20/Liment/Lime S/83/1180, dated 13th August, 1983, issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Rural I, Kota. The petitioners also prayed that the product 'liment' or 'ashmoh' or 'sagol' be declared not as a cement and falls under Tariff Item No. 68 and is exempted vide Notification No. 105/80/C.E., dated 19th June, 1980. It has also been prayed in the alternative that if the said item is regarded as 'sagol' or 'ashmoh' then it is exempted from the levy of Central Excise under the Tariff Item No. 23(2) by virtue of Notification No. 5/70/C.E., dated 31st January, 1970, or Notification No. 14/79/C.E., dated 27th January, 1979.2. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions in view of the fact that the Superi...


Nov 07 1983

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Chaturbhuj and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Nov-07-1983

Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)396

K.S. Lodha, J.1. This revision by the Union of India and the Commandant, 15th, Border Security Force, is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Barmer, dated 17-9-82, by which he has rejected the reference made by the Collector Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), as barred by time.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. It may be mentioned that earlier also, the application for reference had been held to be barred by time by the learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 13-3-76 but on a revision, this Court by its order dated 5-1-80 had remanded the-matter with, a direction to record evidence whether Mr. Arjun Singh was present at the time the award was made and it is in pursuance of that order of remand that after taking further evidence, the learned Civil Judge has passed the present order.4. Two contentions have been raised before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. His first contention is th...


Nov 03 1983

Madan Chand Vs. Urban Improvement Trust and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Nov-03-1983

Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)361

K.S. Lodha, J.1. This matter comes up for the consideration of the application of Shri Vinod Chandra, the alleged legal representative of the appellant Shri Madan Chand for setting aside abatement and impleading him in place of the deceased Madan Chand.2. The suit for injunction restraining the Urban Improvement Trust (U.I.T.) from letting out the land in dispute and also restraining the other defendant Shri Puran Singh from doing anything which might diminish the plaintiff's right of way, air, light, drainage etc. and directing the U.I.T. to sell this land to the plaintiff, had been dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiff's appeal had also failed. The plaintiff has, therefore, come up in' second appeal. The sole plaintiff-appellant Shri Madan Chand admittedly died on 22-5 82. The present application has been filed on 1-3-83. The ground set forth for not bringing the legal representative on record within time, and for setting aside the abatement is that the applicant Shri Vinod ...


Nov 02 1983

The State of Rajasthan Vs. Shanker Lal

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Nov-02-1983

Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)335

K. Bhatnagar, J.1. Respondent Shanker Lal was tried for the offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu.2. The respondent was tried on a complaint lodged by the Food Inspector Mangilal (PW 1) who had checked his shop on January 29,1974. The Inspector purchased red chillis powder from the respondent and after observing necessary formalities sent the sample to public analyst for examination. As per report of the public analyst Ex. P. 6 the sample was found to be adulterated. Thereafter, complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu was proceeded with the trial as stated earlier. The learned Magistrate held the red chillis powder to be 'condiment' and not a 'spice' and therefore, came to the conclusion that sending of 150 gms. of sample instead of 200 gms. was in contravention of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulterotion Rules, 1955 (hereinafter...


Nov 02 1983

The State of Rajasthan Vs. Champat Raj and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Nov-02-1983

Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)438

1. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of the respondents.2. The State has come up for enhancement of sentence of the respondents, who have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/-, each, for having con(ravened Clause 3(i)(ii) of the Rajasthan Specified Foodgrains (Sale of Stocks and Movement Control) Order, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order') punishable Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and in default of payment of fine the respondents were ordered to suffer 15 days' simple imprisonment. The further grievance of the State is that the seized 15 bags Bajra should have been forfeited to the Government. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the respondents only with a fine of Rs. 100/-considering the circumstances that the offence is a technical one and sentence of fine is adequate and in respect of the goods passed an order that the same be returned...


Nov 02 1983

Prem Dan Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Nov-02-1983

Reported in: 1983WLN613

S.S. Vyas, J.1. By these nineteen writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the validity and correctness of orders Ex. P/4 dated July 6, 1976 and Ex. P/5 dated November 21, 1981 passed by the Commandant, 6th Batallion, Jodhpur, whereby they were asked to re appear in the qualifying examination for promotion to the posts of Head-Constable under the Rajasthan Police Sub-ordinance Service Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules'). Since, the grounds taken in all these petitions are identical, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.2. The case set up by the petitioners is that at the relevant times, they were holding the post of Constable in the 6th Batallion and were qualified for promotion to the post of Head Constable. The Board constituted under the Rules conducted the qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Head Constable in 1976. The petitioners appeared in that examination & being successful, their names appeared in...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial