Rajasthan Court October 1990 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.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gauri Shanker and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN472
Milap Chandra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashin the order of the learned Labour Judge Udaipur dated September 26, 1986 by which he has reduced the punishment impost by the petitioner upon its employee Gauri Shanker. The facts of the casegiving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.2. The respondent Gauri Shanker was working in the checking branch of the petitioner. One Kailash Acharya submitted his papers to him and he passed them. On their further checking by higher authorities, they were found incorrect and submitted in order to deceive the Corporation. Gauri Shanker was served with a charge sheet and was suspended. After enquiry, he was found guilty of misconduct and was awarded punishment of withholding of three grade increments with cumulative effect and non-payment of the salary of the suspension period. At his instance, the State Government made a reference Under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act') to th...
Kaushal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN372
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment-dated 11.6.1981 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, whereby, he dismissed the appeal against the judgment dated 4.11.1979 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur. The conviction and sentences awarded to him Under Section 279 I.PC. to one months' Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-,Under Section 304A I.P.C. to one year Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default fo payment of fine to further undergo two menths' Simple Imprisonment. It was also ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently.2. Learned Counsel Mr. M.C. Bishnei for Mr. N.N.Mathur, appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner has submitted that there is no eyewitness of the accident and conviction was based on the mere testimony of a child witness-Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 7) without ascertaining the fact of his understanding. Therefore, the trial is liable to be vitiated. Mr. Bishnoi ha...
Bhop Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN582
Y.R. Meena, J.1. Appellants were tried for the charges Under Section s, 147,302 and 302/149 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Pali who vide judgment dated August 10, 1987 held them guilty Under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 147 IPC and sentenced them each to imprisonment for life for the first count and one year's R.I. on the second count with an order that both the sentences shall run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case against the appellants was that they feeling annoyed with deceased Bhurgiri on account of his siding one Bhanwarsingh, who is said to have given a beating to one Bhopsingh four days prior to the date of incident i.e. June 18, 1984 gave a beating to Bhurgiri with lathis while he was grazing his cattle at about 9-10 A.M. On hearing his cries of 'MARE RE MARE RE' his brother Roopgiri (PW 1) who at the time was standing outside the house of Modia Bhambhi (PW 14) went to the site along with Modia and saw the six appellants giving a beating to Bhurgiri while...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Vikas Co-operative Marketing Society
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)165
Milap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated August 21,1989t by which it has held that penalty Under Section 7AA, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') for failure to file quarterly returns cannot again be imposed while passing final assessment order Under Section 10 of the Act if it had earlier been imposed while passing provisional assessment order Under Section 7A of the Act. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. The assessee-non-petitioner did not file returns of the first and second quarters (1.1.81 to 31.3.81 and 1.4.81 to 30.6.81). The provisional assessment orders Under Section 7A of the Act were passed on 15.6.1981 and 18.8.1981. Penalties of Rs. 460/- and Rs. 170/- were imposed Under Section 7AA of the Act for not filing returns of the first and second quarters. Penalty of Rs. 3,526/- was again imposed Under Section 7AA o...
D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: 1990LC375(Rajasthan); 1991(52)ELT18(Raj)
S.N. Bhargava J.1. These writ petitions involve similar facts and questions of law, so they are being disposed of by a common order. Taking the facts of Writ Petition No. 1849/1989.2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has got several units throughout the country, out of which two units, known as Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries and Shri Ram Fertilizer and Chemicals, are located at Kota, in the State of Rajasthan. Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries has been manufacturing P.V.C. Resin, P.V.C. Compound, P.V.C. Compound MBs, Caustic Soda etc. It has been regularly paying all the demands and dues under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner has been selling nearly 70% of its manufactured articles at the factory gate and the remaining nearly 30% through its various depots at Ahmedabad, Calcutta, Delhi, Indore, Nasirabad, Kundi, Ludhiana, Madras and Meera. The excise duty is being paid regularly. For the first time, the respo...
D.C.M. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT305(Raj)
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. These writ petitions involve similar facts and questions of law, so they are being disposed of by a common order.2. Taking the facts of writ petition No. 1862/1990. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has got several units throughout the country, out of which two units, known as Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries and Shri Ram Fertilizer and Chemicals, are located at Kota, in the State of Rajasthan. Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries has been manufacturing P.V.C. Resin, P.V.C. Compound, P.V.C. Compound MBs, Caustic Soda etc. It has been regularly paying all the demands and dues under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner has been selling nearly 70% of its manufactured articles at the factory gate and the remaining nearly 30% through its various depots at Ahmedabad, Calcutta, Delhi, Indore, Nasirabad, Kundli, Ludhiana, Madras and Mira. The excise duty is being paid regularly. For the first time, the resp...
Hanumanaram Vs. Basti Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN391
K. Bhatnagar, J.1. In this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the order dated 4.10.83 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu has been assailed on the ground that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Magistrate has wrongly applied the provisions of the limitation envisaged by Section 468 Cr.P.C. and dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly rejected the revision petition filed against that order.2. On 13.8.78 the petitioner had filed a complaint Under Section 447 IPC against the non-petitioner. On 5.2.88 statement of the complainant was recorded. An application Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused on the ground that since the offence is punishable by three months in the present case one years period of limitation is allowed for takig cognizance and as the period of more than one year has passed between the date of occurrence and the date of taking cognizance i.e. 13.3.80 when process was order...
Kewal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN389
N.K. Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension of the Sarpanch during the pendency of the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner Shri Kewalsingh.2. The contention of the petitioner is that he has been suspended vide order Annexure-2 dated 2.5.1990. When he was placed under suspension, no charge against him for the offences involving moral turpitude was framed and, therefore, such a suspension is illegal in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Banshidhar Soni v. State 1988 (1) WLN-270 wherein it has been held that no charge was framed and the order of suspension was passed by the State Govt, by invoking its powers Under Section 17 (4A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. Such a suspension was held to be illegal and it was observed that unless a charge is framed, it cannot be said that any case is pending trial against the petitioner-Sarpanch, before a Magistrate. It was also contended that Section 17 (4-A) of the Rajasth...
Secretary, Raj. Public Service Commission Vs. Om Dutt Sharma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)278
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. These special appeals have been filed against the order dated August 1, 1990 of the learned Single Judge, by which 58 writ petitions have been decided.2. Learned Single Judge has given a direction that against 140 seats of Lower Division Clerks, which remained unfilled in Bikaner District shall be filled by considering the candidature of the petitioners who have given their second choice for option in Bikaner District. It has also been observed that they shall be given appropriate seniority at appropriate place in accordance with their merit.3. The respondents has filed writ petitions before the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the selection made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Commission') for appointment to the post of L.D.C. on the basis of combind competetive examination held by the Commission in pursuance to the Advertisement dated July 23, 1986. In the petitions, it was alleged ...
Prakash Chandra and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2566; 1990WLN(UC)99
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, dated 23rd August, 1989. He has convicted the accused-appellant Prakash Chandra for offence under Sections 302, 324 & 341, IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment on the first count, six months' rigorous imprisonment on the second count and one month's simple imprisonment on the third count respectively. The accused-appellant Radheylal was convicted for offence Under Sections 307, 341 and 324, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment on the first count, one month's simple imprisonment on the second count and six months' rigorous imprisonment on the third count respectively. The accused-appellant Shantilal was convicted for offence Under Sections 30...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »