Rajasthan Court May 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.
Miss Neeta Midha Vs. Gramotthan Teachers Training School, Sangaria and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj20; 1991(1)WLC499
1. This Special Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7-2-1991 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed and it has been held that she is not entitled to be admitted to the Basic Teachers' Training Course, hereinafter referred to as 'the Course'. It is alleged that the appellant after passing her Higher Secondary Examination applied for taking-up this course. She has studied in Sangeria District Sri Ganga Nagar as a first class student. She filled up her form in time and submitted it before 13-8-90 which was the last date for submission of the forms. However, she has submitted her bona fide resident Certificate on 17-9-90 but she was not called for interview although she is higher in rank. Simply because the bona fide resident Certificate was not filed by her with the application form, she could not have been denied admission and it has resulted in injustice to her. In this respect, Mr. Lodha has placed rdiance on a decision ...
Prem Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC316; 1991(2)WLN173
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by an Ex Employee of the Rajasthan High Court who has superannuated on 14.11.69 on completion of the age of fifty five years. At the time of superannuation, he was holding the post of Asstt. Registrar and his pay on that date was Rs. 575/- basic plus Rs. 120/- D.A., total Rs. 695/- In view of the terms of Rule 256 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 which govern the Computation of the pension, the petitioner was granted pension by computing the average emoluments of years preceding the date of retirement and by excluding the D.A. According to Rule 256 at the relevant time, the pension was 30/80 of average emoluments with the maximum of Rs. 8100/-. on 18.2.71, Rule 256-A was inserted in the Rules by a notification issued by the State Govt. which came into force from 1.4.70. By the notification, the computation of the pension was liberalised and it was ordered that the computation of pension will be on the basis of the last drawn emolu...
D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj138; 1991(2)WLN386
S.N. Bhargava, J. 1. These four appeals involve similar question of law and therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Adverting to the facts of S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 477/1989. Plaintiff-appellant is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1882 and has got factories at Kota and utilising electricity for running its factories. The plaintiff entered into separate agreements with the defendant-respondent. The defendant issued a notification dt. 6-3-1982 by which the tariff for the supply of electricity was amended with effect from 1-3-1982. The defendant sent a bill to the plaintiff, at the revised rates, starting from 1-3-1982. Plaintiff-appellant made payment of the said bill under protest and made several representations and written several letters to the defendant, asserting that the new tariff could be held to be applicable only from 6-3-1982 and not retrospectively from 1-3-1982 and that the plaintiff was not liable to pay electricity cha...
Mohan Lal Mali Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN495
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiff's first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Beawar, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff was appointed as a Conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'), on 23.3.1976. While discharging his duties as a Conductor, he was given three charge-sheets-dated 29.10.82, 18.6.83 and 16.12.1983 because some passengers were found without ticket in the bus when a checking was made. An enquiry was held by Shri K.N.Mathur, Depot Manager who found the appellant guilty, and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the plaintiff-appellant was removed from service by an order dated 9.3.1984. The plaintiff preferred an appeal but the same was also dismissed on 31.5.1984. Thereafter, he filed the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, for declaration that order of his removal was illegal, unconstitutional and was ...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC617
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J.1. These appeals have been filed under Section 110D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated August 12,1985. The facts of the cases giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus.2. On June 26,1980, a head-on collision took place in between Taxi Car No. RST 6027 and Tanker No. DHL 2454 near the Village Lava on Kherwara-Udaipur road. In the accident, Taxi Car passengers, namely, Vishnu Kumar, Saffuddin, Laluram Shivnath Singh and Ramesh Chandra died and Vidhya Devi was injured. Both these vehicles were insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant and respondent No. 4). The Tanker was owned by M/s Das Transport Company, Shakur Basti, New Delhi (respondent No. 2) and it was being driven by its driver Thakur Das. The Taxi Car was owned by Modh. Rashid (respondent No. 6) and it was being driven by its driver Vijay Singh. Five Claims Petitions were filed by the legal represent...
Sukhdeo Charity Estate Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR615(Raj)
A.K. Mathur, J. 1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued on February 17, 1981, may be quashed and the respondent may further be restrained from taking any proceedings in pursuance of the said notice. 2. The petitioner is a public religious trust constituted under a registered trust deed dated May 21, 1953. This trust is also registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with the Commissioner of Income-tax. The petitioner-trust applies its funds for public and religious purposes in India and it maintains and runs hospitals, temples, etc. The petitioner-trust has its head office at Ladnu, district Nagaur, and a branch at Calcutta. The trust maintains regular books of account both for its head office and the branch office. Ladnu is a small town in the district of Nagaur in Rajasthan and it had no public water supply scheme. In 1961, a public water supply schem...
Hari Singh and Moti Lal Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)155
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs against the similar judgments of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur dated March 7, 1987 by which he allowed the appeals and set aside the similar judgments of the learned Munsif, Udaipur (South) dated September 14, 1984, dismissing the suits for declaration. The facts and law involved in both the cases are similar. As such both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts may be summarised thus.2. The appellants were if the employment of the respondents as Conductors in their buses. Flying Squads of the respondents checked the buses in which the appellants were conductors and found that they had taken fare from certain number of passengers but had not issued tickets to them. Necessary enquiries were held against them under Rajasthan Roadways Workers and Workshops Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter to be called the Standing Orders). The Administrative Officer, D...
Ambassador Dry Cleaners Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR487(Raj)
I.S. Israni, J.1. The matter has come up on a second stay application.2. It is submitted by learned counsel that the stay order was passed by this court on March 26, 1991. However, the penalty order/demand notice/ computation sheets were issued on March 25, 1991. Hence, the second stay application. The parties were heard. Since the matter under consideration is within a short compass, it was heard and disposed of finally with the consent of both the 'parties. Annexures 10 to 13 are demand notices/ penalty orders/computation sheets which have been issued on March 25, 1991.3. It is, therefore, directed that, as provided under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner will move an application within four weeks before the Commissioner of Income-tax, for considering the waiver of the penalty imposed in the years 1975-76 to 1980-81. It is further directed that this application shall be disposed of within two months after the application has been filed. It is made clear that no coerc...
Pilli Ram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN444
I.S. Israni, J.1. Heard. None present for petitioner. This case has been adjourned several times, since no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today also the position is same.2. A prayer has been made in the petition that orders may be made for premature release of petitioner. It is mentioned in the petition that petitioner was convicted in Case No. 56/82 (State of Rajasthan v. Pilli) by Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. Apart from this, some other sentences were also passed for lesser period in the above case in various other Sections. It is also prayed that the respondent may be directed for releasing him on premature release as per provisions of Rule 8(vi) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1958 (for brevity 'the Rules, 1958').3. Reply has been filed. It is submitted by Shri Yameen Khan on behalf of Shri M.I. Khan that petitioner is guilty of suppressing the facts. He has three convic...
Gurdeep Singh Vs. Supdt. Central Jail
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN51
I.S. Israni, J.1. These two letter petitions bearing SBCWP No. 1204/91 & SBCWP No. 1205/91 have been received from petitioners, who are undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail, Jaipur and District Jail, Bharatpur respectively.2. It has been submitted in WP No. 1204/91 that, petitioner is handcuffed when taken to Hospital for treatment. In WP No. 1205/91, it has been mentioned that petitioner is hand cuffed when taken to Court at Ajmer in another criminal proceedings pending against him. It has been submitted by the petitioners that they should not be handcuffed while taking to Hospital/Court.3. It is submitted by Shri Yameen Khan, on behalf of Shri M.I. Khan, that an order was passed by this Court on 5.1.89 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2258/88 (Phool Chand v. State) in which a direction was given that whenever any convict/under trial prisoner is taken to any Court for evidence or medical treatment to any other place, such accused persons should not be handcuffed unless there are spe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »