Rajasthan Court November 1988 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.
Jagdish Soni Vs. A.K. Derashri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)171
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This miscellaneous petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 1st Feb., 1988, passed by the CJM (Economic Offences) Jaipur, by which, he has taken cognizance against the petitioner Under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the act of 1962) and Under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act of 1968' and issued process against the petitioners.2. The officers of the Customs Unit, Jaipur, received some information and on that basis, they apprehended 2 persons, namely, Sushil Kumar and Ramesh Kumar. Then, on inquiry from them, they admitted that they ware carrying gold of foreign marks, in their bodies. Both the persons were brought to Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. A through search of their bodies and baggage, was conducted, but, nothing objectionable was recovered. Then, they were further persuaded to take out the concealed items, and later on, both the persons took out packets fro...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Manorma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)467
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a misc. appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act arising out of a claim for compensation made before the Moto. Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur.2. A sum of Rs. 17 05,000/- was claimed as compensation for a fatal accident before the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,17,600/- as compensation to the claimants and rejected the claim for the remaining amount. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the RSRTC) against which the award had been made preferred an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the claimants filed cross-objection The learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the RSRTC and reduced the amount of compensation payable to the claimants to Rs. 3,20,000/- only and the cross-objection of the claimants was dismissed. The learned Single Judge awarded interest o...
Shambhu Dayal Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN637
S.S. Byas, J.1. Since common question of law is involved in all these 58 (fifty eight) writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. The petitions are directed against an order of the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for brevity R.S.R.T.C. or Corporation here in after) dated 31-5-1988 by which the petitioner's services were terminated with forthwith effect.2. There is not much controversy between the parties in respect of the facts involved. Barring a few of the petitioners, all of them were appointed as Conductors in R.S.R.T.C. in 1987 as is shown in the impugned order Annexure-1 filed in D B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3071/88 Shambhu Dayal v. R.S.R.T.C. and Ors. All of them had put in more than 240 days' service during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment i.e. to say 31-5-1988. At the time of retrenchment one month's wages in lieu of one month's notice and compensation as detailed o...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Umed Sizing Factory
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC126(Raj)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. These three revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, these petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. The question involved in these revision petitions is that whether the respondent-assessee is entitled to the benefit under Section 5C(1) or not.3. The assessee is a manufacturer of sized yarn. He purchases the yarns and then processes them in order to produce sized yarn. A notice was given to him by the assessing authority, Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur, that the sized yarn does not involve a manufacturing process and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit under Section 5C(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessing authority found that the processing of the yarn with the help of other ingredients does not involve manufacturing in terms of Section 2(k) of the Act. Aggrieved against this order the assessee approached the appellate authority, but witho...
Niranjan Lal and anr. Vs. Badri Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)457
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Pratapgarh dated January 30, 1976 affirming the preliminary decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Pratapgarh dated May 1, 1971 whereby the latter had decreed Civil Suit No. 64 of 1966 instituted by the plaintiffs for possession of their portion in a 'haveli' and shop situated in Sadar Bazar, Mochi Para, Chhittorgarh after taking accounts of the income derived by the appellants from the share of the plaintiffs' property.2. Facts leading to the filling of this second appeal are that on April 4, 1966, the plaintiffs-respondents instituted Civil Suit No 64 of 1966 against Chhaganlal and his son Niranjan Lal Chhaganlal died during the pendency of the suit. His son Niranjan Lal was already on record and his widow Smt. Alil Bai was also substituted as his legal representative. The plaintiffs-respondents alleged in the plaint that the parties alongwith Udailal and Bhanwar La...
Mahaveer Prasad and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)284
Gopal Krishan Sharma, J.1. Both the petitioners are with regard to forfeiture of the surety amount pertaining to accused Tej Karan Tej Karan was challaned under Section 409 and two cases were pending against him. The petitioners stood surety in both the cases. Subsequently, the accused absconded and the case is still pending. The lower Court gave notice to the petitioner in both the cases for forfeiture of the surety amount and after hearing ordered to forfeit Rs. 5,000/- from each petitioner in both the cases. They preferred appeals against this order and the learned Sessions Judge in both the cases with regard to both the petitioners reduced the forfeiture amount from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-. Both the petitioners preferred these revision petitions against both the orders in both appeals.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The accused is absconding since 19-2-1980 and inspite of the best efforts, the petitioners could not find him and could not produce him in the Cour...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Govind Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Raj107; 1988(2)WLN291
Kochhar, J. 1. All these three D. B. Civil Special Appeals arise out of a common judgment dt. July 26, 1983, of a learned single Judge of this Court, allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1494/1982 Govind Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., S.B, Civil Writ PetitionNo. 1495/1982 Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1496/1982 Prem Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. Since the main judgment of the learned single Judge has been announced in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1494/1982 and the facts and points involved in all the three appeals are similar, the facts of this appeal only may be mentioned for the purpose of convenience.2. Govind Ram (hereinafter to be referred as the respondent) had been a tenant under the State of Rajasthan (hereinafter to be referred as the appellant), in respect of Shop No. 48A (hereinafter to be referred as the Shop) underneath Police Station Thanmandi, Udaipur. The lease agreement provided that the tenancy could be termi...
Narendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN541
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The petitioner Narendra Singh Surana was appointed as a temporary Excise Inspector under the State of Rajasthan (Respondent No. 1) in pursuance of the order dated 24th October, 1973 (Ex. 5) issued by the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur (Respondent No. 2). The said order of appointment was issued considering that the post available for appointment was a temporary one. He joined his duties on 31st October, 1973. Later on it was found that permanent posts were available and as such vide order dated 22nd November, 1974 (Ex. 6), order dated 24th October, 1973 was amended and the petitioner was ordered to be deemed to have been appointed against a permanent vacancy on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date he assumed charge of his duty. It was made clear in the said order that he would be confirmed on the post of the Excise Inspector on satisfactory completion of the period of probation and passing the departmental examination as per the rule...
Rajasthan Subordinate Service Association Vs. State of Rajasthan and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)555
P.C. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Rajasthan Subordinate Service Association, has challenged the legality of the impugned order dated 5th January, 1987 (Annx. 4) and prayed that the same may be quashed and set aside and the members of the Association be allowed to undergo and complete the training in terms of order dated 1st September, 1986.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Association is an association, which has been recognised by the Government of Rajasthan vide order No. F. 2 (1) Apptt. (A. II)/62 dated 22nd February. 1963. The Association has a branch of para-Medical staff, which is affiliated with it and has a membership of 123 who are trained as sector supervisors in Medical and Health Department. It is contended by petitioner that all the Trained Sector Supervisors i.e. those who were para Medical Multipurpose Workers Course Trained and were working as Sector Super...
Hanuman Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)230
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 482. Cr.P.C. arises out of the order of the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Jodhpur dated 11-2-1988 whereby the learned Addl. District Magistrate has ordered that non-petitioner No. 2 Shri Madanlal will not was his floor mill, Saw mill and Kherat Machine which are installed by him in Plot No. 27, Subhas Colony, Jodhpur. However the petitioners were ordered to produce their evidence. It is this order of production of evidence, which is under challenge in this petition.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioners moved an application against non-petitioner No. 2, Shri Madanlal complaining that he has installed a floor mill, Saw Mill and Kherat Machine in Plot No. 27, Subhash Colony, Jodhpur which create nuisance to the habitants of that locality and, therefore, he may be asked to stop the use of these machine as these machine as these machines have not been installed by him ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »