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.
Hari Ram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)296
1. Heard learned Counsel. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that the respondents may be directed to pay him regular pay scale from 22nd November 1982, with interest. The petitioner is an employee of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Raisinghnagar. He was appointed as class IV employee in the aforesaid Mandi and is working since November 22, 1982. The petitioner was taken out daily wages and he has prayed that he should be given same salary as is being paid to the Class IV employees similarly situated.2. Return has been filed and it has been deposed that the petitioner has played a fraud with the Department as at the time of his initial appointment he was overage. This matter requires to be enquired into by the Department. At present it is premature to say that whether it would be established or not that the petitioner has played fraud with the Department.3. Mr. Sharma submit that regular enquiry has been instituted to find out the correct date of birth of the petitioner. Be it as it...
Gokul Narayan Vs. Urban Improvement Trust and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)304
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This revision has been preferred by Gokul Narayan Arora, whose land was acquired under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 for construction of a road by means of a notification Under Section 52(1) of the said Act issued on 12-8-1965 The possession of the land was taken by the State Government on 22nd June 1965. Proceeding for determination of compensation was thereafter initiated Under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 30th June 1976, the Additional Collector, Jodhpur determined the market value of the land at Rs. 67,276.82 and for the house which was standing on the land acquired at Rs. 3423.00. The Addl. Collector Jodhpur also held that interest would be payable on the quantum of compensation determined w.e.f. 22nd June 1965, i.e., the date of vesting of the property in the State of Rajasthan till the date of payment.2. Against this judgment of the Addl. Collector, two appeals were f...
Sewabhavi Ayurvedic Rasayanshala Trust, Through Its Trustees Vs. Shri ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)361
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This revision (Civil Revision No. 407 of 1990) has been preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Nagaur dated 20-9-1990 passed in Civil Miscellaneous appeal No. 38 of 1989, arising out of Civil Miscellaneous case No. 26 of 1986.2. Shyam Sunder Joshi (Plaintiff non-petitioner in S.B. Civil Revision petition No. 407 of 1990) instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the original defendants nos. 1 to 5 (non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 in S.B. Civil revision petition No. 407 of 1990) from terminating him from the post of Rasayanshala Prabhari and Sahayak Chikitask on the allegations hat the plaintiff was employed by 'Jain Vishwa Bharti Society (for short 'the Society) in the aforesaid capacity on the monthaly salary of Rs. 400/- and that he was covered by the Industrial Disputes Act as well as the Factories Act and there were no rules for termination of services the order terminating him on 10-11-1986 was invalid. Consequently he filed the ...
C.T.O. and anr. Vs. Kundan Mal Mukund Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC404(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J.Revision No. 104 of 1988 : 1. This reference treated as revision is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 16th January, 1979, whereby the learned Division Bench set aside the order of the single Bench and remanded the case to the assessing authority with the direction that the assessing authority may re-examine the issue regarding taxability of the bardana used for the packing of cloth sold by the assessee and if tax is found to be payable in respect of the bardana used by the assessee for packing and selling taxable goods, then such tax may be levied at the same rate which is applicable to the goods packed in the bardana. The Division Bench also observed that it is clarified that no tax would be leviable on the implied sale of bardana which has been used for the packing of tax-free or tax-paid goods which had been sold by the assessee.2. It may be stated that the assessing authority imposed tax on sale of bardana. The same was challenged by the assessee...
Poora Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN348
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner Poora was tried and convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, Under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act, but instead of sentencing the petitioner Poora, the learned Magistrate granted the benefit of probation to him under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, releasing the petitioner on probation for a period of one year, the State preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, allowed the State's appeal, set-aside the order of grant of probation and remanded to case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass an appropriate order of sentence. The conviction Under Section 9 of the Opium Act was, however, maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has co...
Bhagwan Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN405
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners who are 24 in number against the order dated 28.6.1990, passed by M.J.M. Ist Class Laxmangarh (Alwar) in case No. 55/78.2. It is apparent from the record that all these 24 persons are facing trial for the last 12 years but unfortunately the trial could not be completed for one reason or other. After giving several opportunities, when the prosecution did not examine certain witnesses, the learned Magistrate closed evidence of the prosecution in the year 1987. Subsequently, on the application of the A.P.P. the prosecution evidence was re-opened. This order was challenged before this Court in S.B. Cr.Misc. Pet. No. 634/89. This Hon. Court was pleased to accept this petition and the order of the learned Magistrate, granting further opportunity to the prosecution to lead evidence was set-aside.3. The State did not challenge the said order but the complainant filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. T...
C.T.O. Vs. Modern Suitings Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC277(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated 5th January, 1987, whereby the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23rd July, 1985 and of the Commercial Taxes Officer dated 30th May, 1983, were set aside and the appeal of the respondent was allowed. The Commercial Taxes Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the assessee does not qualify for the benefits of Section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and the assessee's application for obtaining form S.T. 17A for the benefits of Section 5CC was rejected. The respondent's case was that the respondent purchases yarn, dyes it and gets the work of weaving done on job basis and further sizes the cloth and also performs other processes in relation to the end-product, i.e., dyed and printed cloth. The department's contention was that the essential function of weaving is not performed by the respondent and so there is no manufacture of goods by the r...
Smt. Kalawanti Vs. Meetha Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN347
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated April 6, 1989. passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi, by which the learned Sessions Judge granted maintenance to the applicant from the date of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate i.e., with effect from December 12, 1986.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant-petitioner Kalawanti filed an application Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance for herself as well as for her two minor daughters. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the applicant-petitioner so far as the petitioner was Concerned, but granted maintenance @ Rs. 75/- each to the two minor daughters with effect from the date of the order, i.e., with effect from December 12, 1986. The present applicant filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, challenging the refusal of the maintenance to herself. No revision petition against the order of the grant of the maintenance to both...
Sardar Kehar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Raj)88; [1992]195ITR769(Raj)
K.C. Agrawal, C.J. 1. The petitioner, a Hindu undivided family, was assessed to income-tax. In 1968, a plot of land at Chandigarh in sector 17-C was purchased. Constructions were, thereafter, started over the plot in 1969. It continued up to 1975, relevant for the assessment year 1976-77. During the assessment years 1968-69 to 1976-77, the petitioner disclosed investments in the construction of the house at Chandigarh as under : (Rs.)19686945,000.001969-701,38,859.001970-711,01,374.001971-7285,416.001972-7368,699.001973-741,39,257.001974-7548,000.001975-761,20,230.001976-7722,062.00Total7,68,897.002. Thus, the total investment up to 1976-77 shown by the petitioner was in the sum of Rs. 7,68,897. 3. Assessments for the years 1968-69 to 1973-74 were simultaneously taken up and completed by the Income-tax Officer, Special Ward, Ajmer, On May 13, 1974. In the said assessment proceedings, the petitioner submitted a letter dated April 29, 1974, detailing therein the amount ofinvestment and s...
Kabul Alias Khudia Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1491; 1990(2)WLN461
N.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Banner, dated 12-12-1988, whereby, he convicted and awarded sentences to the accused-appellant as under:--(See table below)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Under Sections Sentence Fine in default20(ii) & 21 15-15-yrs. R. I. 2-2-Lakhs 1 year R. I.OF THE NDPSAct307 & 332 IPC 4-4-yrs. R. I. Rs. 500-500 1 month R.I.14 Foreigners' 4 yrs. R. I. Rs. 500/- 1 month R. I.Act25 Arms Act 3 months R. I. Rs. 500/- 1 month R. I. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------with a direction that all the sentences will run concurrently.2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are:--On 18-4-1987, one Chandan Singh, Sub-Inspector, S.H.O., Thana, Gadara Road along with Head Constable Heer Dan, Constables Birbal, Ugam Singh and Pagi-Ishaq Khan (Motbir), were going in Jeep No. RJC 2325, which was driven by Karan Singh, in search of smuggle...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »