Rajasthan Court October 1991 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.
Modern Steels Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC377; 1991WLN(UC)369
Mohini Kapur, J.1. The appellant's factory was manufacturing Het/Cold rolled Patti/Patta of certain specifications and earlier it was clearing the produce under I.T. No. 26AA (iii) and was paying duty accordingly, Learnt that in other places the produce was being classified under I.T. No. 26AA(i)(a) and as such no excise duty was payable. The appellant filled a revised classification list on 4.6.1982 and this was accepted by the Assistant Collector on 19.1.1985. He thereafer filed an application for refund of excise recovered without authority from June 1982 to July 1983. A sum of Rs. 98,854.77 P. was claimed but only a sum of Rs. 89,157.80P. was paid on 31.7.1987. The balance amount of Rs. 9696.97, was retained. The appellant filed a writ petition claiming the amount with interest and also interest on the amount of Rs. 89,157.80 Paisa, which have been refunded. The learned Single Judge accepted the appellant's contention as regards the amount of Rs. 9696.97 Paisa and the same was allo...
Dalpat Raj Bhandari Vs. President of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj70
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. The appellant, Sri Dalpal Raj Bhandari, is an Advocate of this Court; he filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed by learned single Judge on 7th August, 1991 and dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1948 has been preferred.2. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the validity of the appointment as Prime Minister of Sri P. V. Narashimha Rao. Before we deal with the merits of the case, we would like to give a brief history as to how his appointment as Prime Minister was made.3. After declaration of the results ofLok Sabha elections, he was unanimously elected leader of the Congress (I) Parliamentary Party on June 20, 1991. He called on the President who invited him to form a Government and gave him four weeks from June 21, 1991 to prove his majority on the floor of the Lok Sabha. A communique issued by the Rashtrapati Bhavan said :--'Mr. P. V. Narasirnh...
Sohanlal Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN350
R.S. Verma, J.1. All these three writ petitions raise identical questions of fact and law and by common consent have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order 2. I may give in outline facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1490/85-Sohan Lal v. The State and Anr. The facts in other cases arc almost similar. The petitioner passed his Higher Secondary Examination and obtained a Diploma in Tailoring and Cutting from the Commercial Tailors Corporation Private Limited (In-cooperative Commercial Tailoring College), Bombay. This Diploma was recognised by the Government of Rajasthan vide Anx. 5. The petitioner was appointed as Teacher by Panchayat Samiti, Pratapgarh by an order dated 14-9-83. This appointment was regularised by order Anx. 2 dated 17-11-83. Eventually, Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Pratapgarh terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 18-5-83 by order Anx. 4 dated 17-6-85. It was stated, inter alia, in the order that the petitioner did no...
Gordhan Ram @ Goda Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN380
K. Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-10-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by which appellant-Gordhan Ram @ Goda Ram was held guilty for the charges under Sections 302, 364 and 404 I.P.C., and was sentence to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 1 months simple imprisonment on the first count; 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 1 months simple imprisonment on the second count and 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one months simple imprisonment on the third count with the order that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case leading to the trial of the appellant is that on 4-1-1986 deceased Chenia alongwith PW 4 Leela and PW 10 Mohani went to the Shop of PW 12 Bhagaram father of Chenia. He was given su...
Arvind Kumar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN511
V.K. Singhal, J.1. These two special appeals one filed by Shri Arvind Kumar (D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 274/85 and the other filed by Shri Narpat Singh (bearing D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 325/85) are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30th July, 1985 and 7th of October 1985 respectively whereby their writ petitions have been dismissed and the relief of their regularisation on the post of Assistant Jailor has been refused with these observations that they have worked for about 8 years as Assistant Jailores and therefore their cases may be considered sympathetically by the Department.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these two writ petitions, briefly stated, are that before their promotion as Assistant Jailors they were working as Wardens in the Jail Department. Shri Arvind Kumar was posted as Assistant Jailor vide order Anx. 1 dated 13.8.76 and Shri Narpat Singh was posted as Assistant Jailor vide an order dated 28th of December 19...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ1014Raj
Inder Sen Irani, J. 1. In these writ petitions a common question of law has been raised, therefore, all the petitions are decided by one order.2. It has been prayed in these writ petitions to quash the reference order made in each petition and to declare that after passing of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for brevity 'the Act, 1970'), the Government of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to make any reference as made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the I.D. Act') in respect of Contract Labour.3. The factual details and number of annexures are given as mentioned in Writ Petition No. 1250/1980. Briefly stated, the petitioner-company has a unit at Kota, Rajasthan, consisting of two factories known as Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals and Shriram Vinyl & Chemicals Industries which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of PVC, Caustic Soda, Urea etc. The petitioner company employs independent contractors to do jobs which are intermittent...
Kishan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)231
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 1.8.1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner by which appellant Kishan Singh was held guilty for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo two months Regorous Imprisonment and sentenced to six months Regorous Imprisonment. Appellant Hem Singh was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default to undergo two months Regorous Improsonment. He was also convicted under Section 324/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months Regorous Imprisonment. Appellant Chhagan Singh was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life; and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo two months Regorous Imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 324/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months Regorous Imprisonment.2. Briefl...
Ramji Lal Chiranji Lal Vs. Ram Charan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC448; 1991WLN(UC)248
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. Two petitions for review/recall of the orders dated November 10, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 4937/89, by which the writ petition was dismissed in limine and stay order dated December 8, 1989, which was granted in Writ Petition No. 4419/89 have been filed. Since both the review petitions are inter-connected, they are disposed of byone order. The order dated November 10, 1989 was passed by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Shri M.C. Jain as he was then and by me and the other order dated December 8, 1989 was passed by Hon'ble Justice Shri G.K. SHARMA as he was then and by me. Both the above mentioned Judges are no more attached with this Court.2. It is submitted by Mr. SC Bhandari, learned Counsel that these review petitions should be heard by a Division Bench and not by Single Judge since the orders were passed by Division Bench of this Court. The learned Counsel has referred to Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court of Judicature Rules, 1952 (for brevity 'the Rules, 19...
Agricultural University of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh Rathore and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC532; 1991WLN(UC)264
Mohini Kapur, J.1. The non-petitioner No. 1 Rajendra singh Rathore, filed a writ petition which came to be decided by learned Single Judge on 22.1.1991. Being aggrieved against this decision, the Agricultural University of Rajasthan, Bikaner, has preferred this appeal.2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Supervisor on casual basis on 18.6.1985, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 475/- p.m. He approached before the learned Single Judge for two reliefs viz. equal pay for equal work and regularisation of his services. The learned Single Judge allowed him the first relief but the second relief was refused observing that the respondent petitioner wanted to enter into service through the back door as he did not appear for the interview when the post was advertised and he had applied for the job in pursuance of the advertisement. While allowing the writ petition in respect of equal pay for equal work, the learned Single Judges directed that the re...
Balbir Singh Baijnath Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN456
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is a revision against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated July 17, 1990 in Civil Misc. Case No. 12/84.2. The facts briefly stated are; the petitioner was a registered firm at Hanumangarh. Balbir Singh s/o Hukama Singh r/o Hanumangarh Junction was its partner. The firm was carrying on the business of handling/transporting Agent for the Food Corporation of India for their Central Warehouse Corporation, Hanumangarh Branch for transporting and other ancillary works relating to urea manure.3. On a notice, inviting tender (for short NIT) for the works of handling, transporting of the goods, including urea from Hanumangarh godown to other points, the petitioner submitted its tender on 8.4.80. Negotiations were held on 29.4.80 and the petitioner received a telegram on 25.4.90, requiring the petitioner to attend the office of the non-petitioner and to produce the security amount along with other papers. However, the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »