Rajasthan Court May 1990 Judgments

Mahesh Chandra Mishra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN301

I.S. Israni, J.1. Above mentioned three writ petitions arc based on almost similar facts and involved similar questions of law, are, therefore, decided by one order.2. All the three petitioners were appointed on fixed salary as L.D.C. in office or respondent No. 2, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board (herein-after referred to as 'the Board'), Jaipur on temporary basis. The services of petitioners were terminated in writ petitions No. 3374/88 & No. 1151/88 by order dated April 1, 1988 (Annexurcs-14 and 17 respectively) and of petitioner in petition No. 3615/88 by order dated April 4,1988 (Anncxure-4). They were paid particular amount to cover one month's notice period and other payments as required Under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act').3. It is contended by Shri R.M.Lodha, Shri N.K. Maloo and Shri M.B.Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the orders mentioned above terminating the services of the petitioners are illegal on ...

Baldev Kishan Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)160

A.K. Mathur, J.1. This is a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 23.1.1990 that whether the acceptance of the final report by the Magistrate amounts to judicial order on an administrative order. In this connection, the learned Single Judge referred to two inconsistent judgments one in Dadam Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1987 R.L.R. 106 and another view taken by Hon'ble G.K. Sharma, J., as he then was, in Jawahara Ram v. The State and Ors. 1989 Cr. L.R. (Raj.29). In view of the inconsistency in the two judgments referred to above, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to Hon'ble Chief Justice that let this controversy may be resolved by a large bench. The Hon'ble Chief Justice in turn sent this case to the Division Bench for resolving this controversy whether the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the final report amounts to judicial order or an administraative order.2. Under Section 173 Cr. P.C. when police submits a report whether an...

Kanaram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1991(1)WLN345

N.C. Sharma, J.1. Ramlal, real younger brother of Kanaram petitioner, has filed this habeas corpus writ petition, for quashing the order of the District Magistrate, Ajmer, dated Aug. 1, '89, whereby, the District Magistrate, Ajmer on being satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in the manner prejudicial to public order, it was necessary to detain him under the provisions contained in National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter, for short 'the Act'), ordered his detention; the order containing the grounds of detention served upon the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Ajmer, dated Aug. 3,'89; the confirmation [ order of the State Government dated Aug. 10, '89; and the order dated Sept. 21, '89, whereby, the State Government further confirmed the detention-order of the petitioner.2. According to the petitioner, he was under arrest in the Criminal Case, registered in pursuance of FIR No. 132/89 Under Sections 152 and 327, IPC. In this Criminal Case, the j petiti...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. R.K. Golecha (Huf)

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: [1990]185ITR510(Raj)

K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the assessment year 1975-76, arising out of the Wealth-tax Appeal No. 245/JP of 1987, dated November 23, 1987. The assessee declared the value of 'Zoraster Haveli', Jaipur, at Rs. 2,08,017. The Valuation Officer determined the value of this property as on October, 1973, at Rs. 6,41,000 by the order under Section 16A dated July 18, 1977, Against this order, an appeal was filed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal partly by holding that the valuation of Prem Prakash Cinema building will be Rs. 21,16,000 plus Rs. 2,11,600 equivalent to Rs. 23,27,600. Thereafter, an application under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act was filed and it was allowed and the valuation of the Prem Prakash Cinema building was cancelled by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Against this order, the Wealth-tax Officer filed a second appeal b...

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. R. K. GolechA.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Raj)194

ORDERK. C. AGRAWAL, J. :Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the following question of law arises for decision, we direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the Case and to refer it to this Court for its opinion.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming, the view taken by the CWT(A) that the valuation of the property known as Prem Prakash Cinema should be taken at Rs. 21,16,000 as determined by the Tribunal in the assessees case for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and it should be enhanced by 10 per cent in each of the subsequent years for the purpose of determining the assessees interest in the firm M/s. S. Zoraster & Co. ?'Question No. 1 does not arise in this case. It will be separately dealt with in WT Ref. No. 49/80....

Public Health and Engineering Department Vs. District Forum, Consumer ...

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

S.K.M. Lodha, President: (1) The only question, with which we are concerned at this stage is whether the appellant has succeeded in making out sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within a period of 30 days. The complainant-respondent No. 2 submitted a complaint before the District Forum, Bikaner praying that the opposite party-appellant may be directed to release water connections in Shiv Badi, Kuchi Basti. The District Forum passed the order on 24.7.89 against the opposite-party-appellant Being dissatisfied with the order, appeal was filed on 19.1.90. Office reported that the appeal is barred by four months and 23 days. Notice was issued to the appellant to satisfy the State Commission that the delay caused in presenting the appeal should be condoned. In pursuance of that, Mr. T.R. Singhal, Executive Engineer of the appellant was heard on the question of delay in presenting the appeal. The opposite-party-appellant submitted an application under proviso to Sec. 15 of the Act for...

Vijayandra Agarwal Vs. Yogendra Kumar and Others

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

S.K.M. Lodha, President: (1) Originally this was filed as an appeal. However it was registered as a revision subject to all just exceptions. The complaint was filed by Yogendra Kumar Sharma against Vijendra Agarwal before the District Forum, Kota on 23.5.89. This complaint was decided on 2.11.89. The order passed by the District Forum against the opposite party petitioner was ex parte. An application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed by Vijendra Kumar supported by affidavit. The District Forum passed the order on this application on 9.1.90. Certain conditions were imposed for setting aside the ex parte order. (2) Aggrieved Vijendra Agarwal filed the appeal which was registered as a revision. After the receipt of the record we heard Mr. M. P. Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Yogendra Kumar Non-petitioner. (3) The order under revision is signed by one of the members of the District Forum, Kota. It is not necessary to make a detailed probe in the matter, for, we ar...

Miss. Swati Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1991CriLJ939; 1990(2)WLN110

ORDERNavin Chandra Sharma, J.1. (Miss) Swati, a young girl of about 20 in Nov., 1986, and daughter of Charandas Lodha of Purana Fatehpura, Sewa Mandir Road Udaipur, who was a compulsorily retired Government servant sometime in the year 1984-85 and was still yearning for his pensionary benefits and was suffering from some mental disorder, and who had his counterpart Kiran Devi, having completed her Higher Secondary at Udaipur, shifted to Ajmer to join Sophia Women's College there for graduation in or about 1984 and became a Sophian. Apart from being young, she was a sports woman as well and played tennis by shunting balls from this Court to that Court. At Ajmer, there was Dr. Raj Kumar Jaipal (to be referred hereafter as only 'Raj Kumar'), born to Jas Raj, a former member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, through his wife, Smt. Bhagwati Devi a former State Minister in the State of Rajasthan, who had himself contested the election in the State Legislature from Ajmer East Assembly (R...

Shree Singhvi Brothers and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: (1990)83CTR(Raj)229; [1991]187ITR219(Raj)

Jasraj Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order annexure 13 dated May 31, 1988, whereby the waiver petition filed under Sections 273A and 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been rejected. A direction has also been sought for reconsideration of the waiver petition by the non-petitioners or, in the alternative, the petitioners have claimed waiver of the penalty amounting to Rs. 29,600 imposed against them under Section 271, vide order annexure 6 dated March 12, 1987, They have further sought relief by way of quashing of the order, annexure 15, dated December 12, 1988, the notice annexure 16 dated February 15/24, 1988, the order annexure 21, dated March 23, 1989, and the complaint annexure 20 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition br...

Ram Chandra Yadav and anr. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. a ...

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: [1990(60)FLR267]; (1990)IILLJ408Raj

S.S. Byas, J.1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these two identical writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common order. The dispute between the employer and the employees relates to the re-employment of the retrenched workmen under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').2. The five petitioners Nahar Singh, Kaluram, Uma Kant, Ram Chandra and Hanuman Sahai were appointed as Conductors in Jaipur Region of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur on daily wages somewhere in 1986 or 1987. By orders Annexure-4 (filed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2860/88 and Annexure-3 (filed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2903/88) each dated 7th September, 1987, the Corporation terminated the services of the petitioners. It was stated in these two orders that when the occasions arose in future, they will be re-employed according to their seniority i.e. to say in accordance with the pro...