Rajasthan Court January 1987 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.
Suraj NaraIn Vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN489
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the first appellate court District Judge Jaipur dated 4-5-1985 passed in Appeal No. 7 of 1982 whereby the amendment application dated 24-9-1982 was rejected.2. The case has got a chequered history and that according to Mr. Vidhya Bhushan, it is now going to be three decades of this litigation.3. The controversy relates to paternity of Suraj Narain, who alleges that he is son of Gauri Lal and the controversy was regarding the alleged legitimacy of his birth. The suit was for partition and it came to this court earlier also for rendition of accounts and dissolution of the firm.4. At present the question is whether the first appellate court committed any error of jurisdiction in rejecting the prayer for amendment and further whether any of the conditions laid down in the proviso will be fulfilled so that Section 115 CPC, can be invoked.5. The amendments mention that the parties are Darjis and Darjis according to...
Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. Vs. Khalid Ahmed and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)217
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Labour Court Annx. 4 dated 28-1-1984.2. Non-petitioner No. 1 moved the State Government for making a reference challenging his termination by the Assistant Engineer, PWD (B & R), Churu. It is alleged that he continuously worked form 1-7-1979 to 31-12-1979 on the post of Beldar and from 1-1-1980 to 31-12-1980 on the post of Munshi, thus he has completed 240 days in service therefore the Assistant Engineer could not have terminated the services of the non-petitioner No. 1 whithout complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. A reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court and a notice was given to the petitioner on filing the claim petition by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court. Inspite of service of notice on petitioner the petitioner did not appear before Tribunal. Therefore the Labour Court proceeded ex-parte and ultimately the Labour Court fou...
Bheem Singh Vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)212
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order (Ex. 1) dated 30-10,1982 whereby his services have been terminated under Regulation 20(f) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Employees (non-workmen) Service Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations').2. The petitioner was serving as Assistant Security Officer in the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Rawat Bhata. This respondent No. 2, the Pasohimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. advertised the post of Security Officer on a permanent basis. The petitioner applied for the post and he was found suitable and selected. The petitioner was appointed as an Asstt. Security Officer by respondent No. 2 by the order dated 6-4-1977. The petitioner's services were terminated by taking resort to Regulation 20(f) of the Regulations and his services have been terminated by the order dated 30-10-1982 (Ex. 1) on the ground that the work of security has been given on contract. I...
Radha Kishan Takwani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)209
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that Respondents No. 1 to 3 may be restrained from awarding dealer-spip of retail out-let of petrol and high speed diesel on Hanumangarh Road at Sri Ganganagar.2. The petitioner is resident of Sri Ganganagar. Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement which was published in daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' for grant of dealership/out-let for sale of petrol and high speed diesel The out-let was required to be established between a mile stone of 1.5 km. to 2.5km. to Hanumangarh Road at Sriganganagar. The advertisement further required that the applicant must be having an educational qualification as Matriculate or its equivalent. He should not have any close relation with the person engaged in dealership or distribution of any oil company. It was further required that the applicant should not be less than 18 years and he should not be more than 50 years of age on the date of application. The application was require...
Hindustan Automobiles Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: [1987]66STC194(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. This matter was initially a reference made to this Court prior to the above amendment for deciding the following questions of law :(1) Whether, on a proper interpretation of entry No. 8 of Notification No. F. 6(16) FD(CT)/69-2 dated 8th March, 1969, the Commercial Taxes Officer was justified in bifurcating the sale of tractors into that of tractor and other parts fitted therein and levying tax at 7 per cent ?(2) Whether, on the proper interpretation of the nature of the transactions, towing hooks, tractor-hoods, mudguard-sheets, front wheel weights, rear wheel weights, telescopic axles, seat cushions, hour meters, etc., fitted with the tractors can be taxed at the concessional rate of 2 per cent ?2. The material facts are these :The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of purchase and sale of tractors, its spare par...
Arjun Ram Vs. Additional Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN453
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders Annx. 4 and 5.2. The petitioner has a patta sud plot of land, which was purchased by him. It was situated at Satimata Colony, Ratanada known as Karamchari Colony, near Residency Road, Jodhpur. The petitioner constructed a house on the ground floor with the permission of the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, Thereafter, the petitioner applied for permission for construction of the first floor before the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur vide his application along with a plan before the Urban Improvement Trust on 23-12-1983. While the construction was going on the petitioner submitted a revised plan for the first floor. After 2-1/2 months a report was made that in the northern side there is 10 ft. lane and there is a plot which belongs to others and hence no windows can be sanctioned to be opened. Meanwhile a notice under Section 91 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act was issued by the Secretary, Urban ...
Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation Vs. Authority Appointed Under ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN503
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The common question which arises in all these revision petitions is whether the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (here in after referred to as 'the Corporation') can deposit the arrears of Dear-ness Allowance (DA) admissible to its employees in the General Provident Fund (GPF) or some similar account and not pay in cash, and would deposit in such GPF or other account amount of deduction of wages under Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act (here in after referred to as 'the Wages Act').2. The petitioner Corporation has been constituted under the Ware Housing Corporation Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in which 50% shares belong to the State Government. It has its own staff and the service conditions of the staff are governed by regulations framed under Section 42 of the Act and are called the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (Staff) Regulations 1574 (here in after referred to as the Regulations). The Act provides for the constitution ...
Ram Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN559
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 24-5-1984 (Ex. 1) transferring the petitioner from Municipal Board, Anoopgarh to Municipal Board, Hanumangarh. Petitioner has also challenged the validity of Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate Service) Rules, 1963.2. Petitioner was working as a Revenue Inspector in the Municipal Board, Anoopgarh. Petitioner proceeded on leave from 7-5-1984. On 9-7-1984 when he wanted to resume his duties, then he was informed that his services has been transferred from the Municipal Board, Anoopgarh to the Municipal Board, Hanumangarh.lt is this order which is sought to be challenged the present writ petition.3. So far as the question of validity is concerned the same has already been upheld by this Court in the case of Mohan Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan 1979 RLW 441. Since the State Government has power to transfer the incumbent from one place to another and transfer can be interfered if it...
Karni Singh and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)223
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue (Annx. 4) dated 27-6-1978.2 Briefly stated the facts are that Khivsingh was the father of petitioners No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and husband of petitioner No. 3. He was holding the land, which was ancestral as he bad inherited the same from his forefathers. The petitioners and late Shri Khivsingh were members of the Joint Hindu Family. Proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the old ceiling law') were initiated against Shri Khivsingh. The Sub Divisional Officer by his order dated 5-11-1973 held that only petitioners No. 1 and 2 who were sons of Khivsingh were entitled to hold 69 bighas of land and he declared 382 bighas, 13 biswas of land as surplus. Against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the ...
Yashwant Singh Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)291
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') may be declared as unconstitutional and may be struck down. He has also prayed that the Rajasthan Financial Corporation may be restrained from taking over the possession of the factory of the petitioner and the sale notice Ex. 3 may be quashed.2. So far as the validity of Section 29 of the Act is concerned, the same has already been upheld by this Court at Jaipur Bench in M/s Hotel Ajaymeru Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and another (S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 648 of 1985 decided on 19-9-1985) Mr. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 32 was not taken into consideration and the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar Sinha & ors v. State of Bihar & ors (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5142 of 1979 decided on 7-5-1980 was not brought to the notic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›