Rajasthan Court November 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.
Gurdeep Singh Vs. Superintending Irrigation Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)273
M.C. Jain, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Superintending Engineer Irrigation dated 1-6-1979 whereby the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer that the squares no. 34 and 44 of Chak 19 GG may be transferred to Chak 2LL for irrigation was not confirmed.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Superintending Engineer is without jurisdiction is as much as the Divisional Irrigation Officer alone is competent to deal with the matter and only appeal lies to the Superintending Engineer Under Rule 11 Sub-rule (2) of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules 1955. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent the relevant provision which deals with the matter is Section 20 of the Rajasthan Irrigation & Drainage Act, 1954 and Rule 11 has no application. He relied on a decision of this Court in Jaimal Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1977 WLN UC- 275 wherein it has been held that allowing extra land to be irrigated from existing o...
Bijender Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)242
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner was medically examined on the police request as it appears from the injury report of the petitioner which is tagged with the case diary. It shows that the petitioner was available to the police after the incident and his injuries were got examined by the police. The accusation against him is that he gave a teeth-bite to the injured Chaju.The petitioner is said to be a government employee.2. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner Bijender.3. The S.H.O./I.O. P.S. Gudha, district Jhunjhunu, in F.I.R. No. 113/90 is directed to released the accused petitioner Bijender on bail in the event of his arrest provided he furnishes a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction of the following conditions:(1) That he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;(2) That he shall n...
Guman Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)297
R.S. Verma, J.1. These writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact and hence by consent of all parties have been heard together and are being disposed by a comon judgment. I need not separately narrate facts of each case and would content myself by narrating facts pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1706/84-Ratan Singh v. State.2. The petitioner is a matriculate and he took admission in the Jharphakar Tailoring College, Bombay in the Acadeamic Sessions 1977-78 for grant of Tailoring and Cutting Diploma. The petitioner could not clear the main examination conducted by the said college but he appeared at a supplementary examination and cleared the same. He was appointed on the post of a teacher on a temporary basis by an order passed by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jhadol on 29-10-79 (Anxx. 1). His services were brought to an end on 2-5-80 but he was again appointed for the Acadamic Sessions 1980-81 on temporary basis. The services were again brought to an end by order...
Vishal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN368
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order Annex. 2 dated 18.1.1990 may be set. Aside and the respondent No. 3 may be restrained not to take any part in the proceedings of the Panchayat.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the convenient disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Netewala Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar. One Jaimal Ram was also eleccted as Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Jaimal Ram submitted his resignation from the office of up-Sarpanch to the chief Executive officer cum-2 Secretary, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar, The resignation was sent on 29.8.1989 and the same was received by the respondent No. 2 on 1.9.1989. The same was accepted Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (refered to hereinafter as 'the Act') by the respondent No. 2 on 7.9.1989. Thereafter, various meetings of the Panchayat held from time to time and in the last 8 meeting he did not at...
Roop Chand Shah Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)292
M.C. Jain, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of dismissal dated 11-11-75 (Ex.21) and maintained in appeal by the Government on 7-2-80 (Ex. 23). The petitioner was posted as Excise Inspector, Bilara in the Excise Department of the Government of Rajasthan. He was served with a memorandum dated 3-1-75 and enquiry Under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 was conducted against him. After enquiry finding the petitioner was found guilty of charges No. 1,2 partially 3 and 5. A show cause notice dated 18-10-75 (Ex. 18) against the proposed penalty of dismissal was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 20-10-75 (Ex. 20). The Disciplinary Authority, however, passed the order of dismissal agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government but the same was dismissed vide communication ...
Swadeshi Felt Manufacturers and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(32)ECC276
M.B. Sharma, J.1. A limited controversy in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the excise duty which was paid the petitioner under protest and if so what is the period of limitation. A question will arise and in my opinion it is an important question, more so in this equitable jurisdiction of this Court as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any amount even if the excise duty was paid by it under protect.2. It may be stated at the very outset that so far as the liability of the petitioners for payment of excise duty on woollen felts which the petitioners used to manufacture is concerned, it is no longer res Integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills : 1977(1)ELT24(SC) . In the aforesaid case the question had arisen as to whether the felts manufactured by Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills are 'Woollen fabrics' with in the meaning of Entry 21 in the First Schedule to t...
NaraIn Dass Vs. Legal Representative of Champa Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)302
Milap Chandra, J.1. This petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151, C.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated August 4, 1987 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Byas in S.B. Civil Execution Second Appeal No. 10 of 1974, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated May 13, 1974 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated May 13, 1974 by which he affirmed the order of the Civil Judge, Hanumangarh dated December 21, 1973, dismissing the objection petition moved under Order 21 Rule 90, C.P.C. of the Judgment-debtor-petitioner. The facts of the case giving rise to this review petition may be summarised thus.2. On May 10, 1956, the decree-holder Champalal obtained a decree for recovery of certain amount against the judgment-debtor-petitioner Narain Das. On May 22, 1968, third execution application was moved for the recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 9,588/-. An imm...
Shakti Kant Pathak Vs. the Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sa ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN271
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. This special appeal is directed aginst the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 29.7.86 whereby the petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed.2. The contention of the petitioner-appellant is that he was initially appointed as L.D.C. in the respondent Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd, Jodhpur on purely adhoc basis for a period of six months vide Order Annexure-1 dated 18.1.1986. It is alleged that while the petitioner appellant was in service, he was asked to explain his conduct vide letter Annexure-6 dated 19.5.86. Certain irreqularities were pointed out as regards his working in the discharge of his duties as a Despatcher. Thereafter, by order Annexure-3 dated 17.6.1986, he was transferred from Jodhpur to Phalodi. However, vide order Annexure-2 dated 21.6.1986, his services were terminated on expiry of six months. The petitioner-appellant has challenged the order Annexure-2 dated 21.6.1986 on two grounds: firstly that it is pe...
Rajvendra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)WLC439; 1990(2)WLN446; 1990WLN(UC)404
A.K. Mathur. J.1. All the batch of writ petitions mentioned in Schedule a appended to this order are disposed of by this common order as the basic questions involve in all these writ petitions arc common.2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3663 of 1990: Rajvendra and Ors. v. 'State of Rajasthan and Ors. arc taken into consideration.3. The petitioners in this writ petition are trained teachrs and they applied for selection to the posts of primary school teachers in pursuance of the advertisement No. 1 of 1988 issued by the Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar. The Selection Committee held selections in the month of October 1989 and the petitioners were interviewed by the selection Committee. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 issued selectlists in which the names of the petitioners find mention. The petitioners were allotted to Panchayat Samities, Nohar and Bhadra. The Panchayat Samities, Nohar and Bhadra issued appointm...
Shakti Kant Pathak Vs. Paschami Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)138
N.K. Jain, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29.7.86 whereby the petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed.2. The contention of the petitioner-appellant is that he was initially appointed as L.D.C. in the respondent Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Jodhpur on purely adhoc basis for a period of six months vide Order Annexure-1 dated 18.1.1986. It is alleged that while the petitioner-appellant was in service, he was asked to explain his conduct vide letter Annexure-6 dated 19.5.86. Certain irregularities were pointed out as regards his wording in the discharge of his duties as a Despatcher. Thereafter, by order Annexure-3 dated 17.6.1986, he was transferred from Jodhpur to Phalodi. However, vide order Annexure-2 dated 21.6.1986, his services were terminated on expiry of six months. The petitioner-appellant has challenged the order Annexure-2 dated 21.6.1986 on two grounds: firstly that it is pena...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »