Rajasthan Court October 1989 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.
Sunil Kumar Saxena Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN612
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions No. 475 and 476 of 1989, filed respectively by Sunil Kumar Saxena and Mohan Lal by a common order as in both of them, the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the University of Rajasthan to appoint them as Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration and in the Department of Business Administration respectively and have alleged that there has been violation of their fundamental rights Under Articls 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India2. The case set up by Sunil Kumar Saxena is that he is a Master of Arts in Public Administration having secured 55% marks with an added qualification of M. Phill (Public Administration) and also some research work. An advertisement was published by the University of Rajasthan of June 18, 1988 in a daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' inviting applications for appointment in various disciplines in the faculties of the University. The...
Swaran Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN405
R.S. Verma, J.1. Appellants Swaran Singh, Baldeo Singh, Banta Singh, Ajmer Singh alias Jasmer Singh, Harnam Singh and Mal Singh were put up for trial before learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, for committing riot and committing murder of Chhinda Singh in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly of which they were said to be members and further for voluntarily causing simple hurt to Smt Veero by a sharp edged weapon in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly. Baldeo Singh was individually prosecuted for causing the said injuries to Smt. Veero. It is alleged that Ajmer Singh was armed with a lathi while Swaran Singh and Mal Singh were armed with Barchhis. Baldeo Singh, Banta Singh and Harnam Singh are said to have been armed with Gandasis. Learned Addl Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 29-1-82 found Ajmer Singh guilty of an offence Under Section 147 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on the said charge; he fo...
Sugan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN342
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This a criminal revision petition arising out of the judgment dt. May 17, 1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas. Under the aforesaid judgment the learned Judge partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and reduced the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short, the Act) The accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default of fine to further suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment. Along with the accused petitioner the learned trial court had convicted the wife of the accused petitioner but the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the wife of the charge under Section 16/54 of the Act.2. In assailing the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the petitioner's counsel has contended that there is no evidence that after the sample was taken by the Excise Inspector and till it reached the Chemica...
M.C. Golcha and anr. Vs. Official Liquidator and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1989
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas302(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The dispute relates to the dividend amount of Rs. 2 lakhs lying with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. Under an order of this court, dated May 10, 1968, Golcha Properties P. Ltd. was ordered to be wound up. The official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as official liquidator of the company in liquidation. While the company was in liquidation, first dividend of Rs. 59,652.41, second dividend of Rs. 65,050.81 and a third dividend of Rs. 1,45,457 were declared on February 22, 1973, May 11, 1973, and November 20, 1975, respectively. Out of the aforesaid amount of dividend, a sum of Rs. 2,24,858.29 remained unclaimed. Under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 555 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), the official liquidator paid the dividend payable to the shareholders into the public account of India in the Reserve Bank in a separate account which is known as the Companies Liquidation Account.2. A Company Petition No. 15 of 1979 ...
Chandi Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN599
Mrs. Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This petition relatee to the custody of a truck Number RRQ 3396. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra has directed that the truck be handed over to the non-petitioner No. 2, Satya Narayan, who is the registered owner of the truck and in whose favour the permit of the truck been issued.2. This decision of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 18th Feb., 1988 has been challenged by the petitioner who claims that he was in possession of the truck when it was seized by the police in a case of that in which Umrao Dan and Hinglazdan are the accused.3. It is an admitted position that the registered owner of the truck is Statya Narain, non-petitioner No. 2 and on 25th July, 1986, he had entered into an agreement with the petitioner to sell the truck for a sum of Rs., 1,30,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- was paid at that time and the remaining amount was to be paid in instalments. Documents of the truck were handed over to the petitioners.4. The petitioner's contenti...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.K. Golecha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1989
Reported in: [1992]194ITR441(Raj)
1. This application has been moved by the Revenue under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the questions of law as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the application for the consideration of this court. This application relates to the assessment year 1979-80. Shri Singhal has invited our attention to the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to show that, for computing the valuation of the building of Prem Prakash Cinema, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the valuation of the said property in the assessment year 1974-75. Shri Singhal has also submitted that, in respect of theassessment year 1974-75, the matter relating to the valuation of the said property is already under consideration before this court, inasmuch as by order dated August 21, 1989, in D. B. Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 20 of 1986 (CWT v. S.K. Golecha (HUF) ), this court has directed the Tribunal to refer two questions of law in relation to the...
K.C. Nawaria Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN547
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by K.C. Nawaria for setting aside the transfer order Annexure-II dated June 29, 1989 whereby the petitioner, who is an Assistant employed in Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, has been transferred from Jaipur to Alwar against a vacant post.2. The petitioner's case is that he joined as Junior Assistant on July 19, 1980 in Rajasthan Housing Board at Jaipur. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant in 1986 and transferred to Jodhpur on May 17, 1988. This is a mis-statement, because Annexure-I is a transfer order from Jodhpur to Jaipur. The petitioner has pleaded that his parents are old and to not maintain good health. If is stated that they were suffering from Asthama and T.B. respectively and they were under treatment since 1985. Hi has cow been transferred on June 29, 1989 to Alwar.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in this peti...
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ422Raj; 1990(1)WLN594
ORDERN.C. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order of the Director, Ayurvedic Department, Rajasthan, Ajmer dated July 29, 1989 (Annexure-3) whereby he has been transferred from Bundi to Silore.2. A rule was issued on August 21, 1989 returnable within a week against the respondents to show cause why the writ petition may not be admitted and disposed of. On August 28, 1989, counsel for the State sought time to file reply. He was allowed time to file reply and the matter was directed to be listed after six weeks. No reply was filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter Durga Shankar Soni who had, by the same order, been transferred to Bundi, intervened to be impleaded as a party and he was made a party in the case.3. If by the expression ' Ayurved Vibhag' I rightly understand that it is a department charged with the public duty of looking after the health of the residents of this State through the medium of Ayurvedic Medicines which may be prescribed by ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Banwari Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN652
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 21, 1980 passed by the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raisinghnagar, acquitting the accused of the offence Under Section 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act').2. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that the complaint filed by the Excise Inspector in this case was not maintainable as he could not be considered to be an Excise Officer within the meaning of Section 67 of the Act, The learned Magistrate has relied on the judgment of this Court given in Bhagwana v. State of Rajasthan 1979 Cr. LR Raj. 159.3. The view taken by the learned Magistrate does not, now, hold good as Bhagwana's case stands reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Laxman Singh 1980 WLN 433, where in it was held that the Excise Inspectors are Excise Officers within the meaning of Section 3(7) of the Act and are, therefore, competent...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ugar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR255(Raj)
1. This application has been moved under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, whereby the Revenue has prayed for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the two questions mentioned in para 6 of the application for consideration of this court. Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the Revenue, has submitted that the questions which have been raised are already under consideration in other matters in which this court has directed the Tribunal to make a reference and, therefore, in the present case also, reference should be called for in respect of these questions.2. Mr. Ranka, learned counsel for the assessee has, on the other hand, pointed out that, as regards the first question, the total amount which was added by the Wealth-tax Officer under Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules was Rs. 1,11,813 and the tax liability in respect of the above is only to the extent of Rs. 1,100. The submission of Mr. Ranka is that the amount of tax is too insignificant to require consideration by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »