Rajasthan Court July 1991 Judgments
inder Kumar Goyal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj181; 1991(2)WLC196
ORDER1. The main question involved inall these writ petitions relates to vires ofSection 4B(3) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and Rule 4CC of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951. Arguments were, therefore, heard jointly for all these writ petitions on the request of learned counsel for the parties and they are being disposed of by a common order.2. We may refer to the facts of Writ Petition No. 2663/89 Inder Kumar Goyal v. State of Rajasthan and others.3. Petitioner Inder Kumar Goyal is holding three contract carriage permits in his own name, details of which have been set out in para 2 of the writ petition. Vehicle No. RNP 2964 (1988 model) is owned by the petitioner and it is registered in his name. He is having All India Tourist Permit No. RTA/79/27/1, which has been renewed up to 30th May, 1992. The statement of the petitioner is that he has deposited road tax as well as special road tax as prescribed under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Aluminium Cables Limited Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Bo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC268; 1991WLN(UC)451
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r). CPC read with Section 104, CPC against the order of the Distt. Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff appellant, under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Order 9 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Section 151 C.P.C. whereby the petitioner-plaintiff had prayed for stay of encashment of the bank guarantee.2. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') accepted an offer of the appellant company for supply of 10 of ACSR Zebra Conductor, on the terms and conditions contained in the purchase order. A formal contract agreement was executed in writing between the parties on 22.10.1979. The said contract contained an arbitration clause mentioned in Section 26 thereof. As per the term No. 16 of the contract, the appellant was to furnish security deposit for the due fulfilment of the contract equivalent to 5% of the contract value in the form of...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN574
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:J/i-The Respondent Commission may be restrained from making selection of any candidates who does not have 5 years experience In the speciality of Pediatrics (as distinguished from 5 years service as C.A.S.). If for giving the aforesaid relief it is considered necessary, the requirement of 5 years experience in the speciality as laid down in the Rules and has been referred to herein above may be declared to be invalid and may be struck down.J/ii-Alternatively, without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the Respondent be directed to press into service General Note I and call the candidates to the extent of time as the petitioner for the interview and recommend those found suitable.J/iii-if for any reason the appointments to the post of Junior Specialists are made without considering the case of the petitioner, such appointments may be declared to be invalid and the orders made to this effe...
Tag this Judgment!Rambabu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)192
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st February, 1983 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Alwar where by he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307 and 324 IPC and awarded a sentence of four years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- (In default, further to undergo six months R.I.).2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that F.I.R. was lodged by one Shri Radha Ram on 10-9-1982 at about 10 p.m. at the Police Station wherein it was alleged that Bodan and Udaram (complainant) were sitting out side their house in their Mohalla (Akhepura); and at that time appellant Rambabu, who also resides in the same Mohalla, asked Bodan and Udaram as to what were they talking. On this Udaram and Bodan told him that they were talking about their family affairs. On that Rambabu got angry and asked them to stop talking but Bodan and Udaram were talking continuously. Rambabu was taken away by his mother and brother to his house. After abo...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Alfa Alloy Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC97; 1991WLN(UC)510
K.C. Agarwal, C.J.1. This Special Appeal & other Special Appeals, mentioned in Schedule 'A', have been filed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be others 'the Board') and its Assistant Engineer (C.S.D.) under Section 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgments dated August 23, 1986 and December 17, 1986 passed by learned Single Judges in the various writ petitions filed by the power consumeri The learned Single Judges have partly allowed the writ petitions. They have struck down Note II given below Item No. 8 of Part II of the General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges Relating to the Supply of Electricity, 1964 (hereinafter to be called the General Conditions') providing that no interest would be payable on the security deposit. They have also directed that the interest would be payable on the amounts of enhanced security deposits from the date of the deposit at the rate payable by the Scheduled bank on fixed deposits made for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sajid Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)311
Farooq Hasan, J.1. By this appeal, appellants, namely, Sajid Khan, Majid Khan, Ashraf, Bhoundu, Boti, Sultan Surajmal, Himmat, Hasmal, Budh Singh & Jhuha Mev have challenged their impugned conviction & sentences which are thus-All appellants Under Section 307/149, IPC 4 years RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default, further 6 months RI.Sajid Under Section 325/149, IPC 2 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 250/- in default, 3 months RI further.Sajid and all others Under Section 324, IPC 1 year's RI with a fine of Rs. 150/- (in Under Section 324/149, IPC default, 2 months RI further)All appellants Under Section 147, IPC 6 months RI with a fine of Rs. 100/-in default, 1 month's RI further.All appellants Under Section 323, IPC 3 month's RI.except Sajid, Majid & Budh Singh.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial, it is evident that the genesis of the incident was that a squabble took place at a well where, Mst. Chhotki W/o ...
Tag this Judgment!Yashpal Malik and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)365
Farooq Hasan, J.1. These five appeals (three filed by Yashpal Malik & two by D.S. Naruka against three different same dated judgments in three criminal cases Nos. 15/76, 16/76 & 17/76, lend themselves to disposal by this common judgment because as has been jointly contended by the parties, the charges levelled against the present appellants are of similar nature although they relate to different months, in respect of different parcels.2. In each of three criminal case Nos. 15/76, 16/76 & 17/76, Yashpal Malik has been convicted under Sections 161, IPC, & Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas D.S. Naruka with the aid of Section 120B IPC, but each of the present appellants in each of criminal cases, referred to above, has been sentenced as under:Under Section 161, IPC, - I year's R.I.Under Section 5, Prevention of - one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- (In default,Corruption Act, futher one month's R.I.)3. Substantive sentences under both the counts, in each of the...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Singh Deora Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC188; 1991WLN(UC)469
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, Shri Vijay Singh Deora (Petitioner), after obtaining the Degree of B.E. (Civil) from M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur, in 1976, got himself registered with the Department of Man Power, Government of Rajasthan. He was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department vide order dated 28.1.1977 (Annexure-1) on purely temporary basis till the selected candidates were available. The petitioner joined the service on 4.2.1977 and since then, he is working as Junior Engineer. No selections service on 4.2.1977 and since then, he is working as Junior Engineer. No selections were held till 30.6.1978. An advertisement was issued on 26.7.1978. (Anx. 2) inviting applications for filling the vacancies of Junior Engineer (Civil). However, a note was appended in the advertisement that only those candidates who had joined service after 30.6.1978 could apply. The candidates who were selected in pursuance of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC107; 1991WLN(UC)516
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Question which arises for determination in this Writ Petition is as to whether a person appointed to Rajasthan Administrative Service can be kept on probation for over a decade and as to whether he can be deprived of seniority, promotion, pay fixation ect. because the order of confirmation has not been passed by the competent authority.2. Petitioner, who is physically (orthopaedically) handicapped, joined government service as a senior teacher. In the year 1976, the RPSC advertised vacancies in Rajasthan Administrative Service which were to be filed in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1976 (leteron changed to 1977). The petitioner appeared in the competitive examination held by the RPSC in July-August, 1977. The petitioner claimed that he is entitled to be considered for selection/appointment in terms of the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules,1976. Neither the State Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swastic Motors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR368(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Income-tax Act'), wherein it has been prayed by the Revenue that its application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act had been dismissed by the Rajasthan Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'A' (Camp at Jaipur), and that this court should direct the said Tribunal to draw up the statement of the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal ?'2. The relevant facts to decide the present application are these :Against the order dated June 21, 1980, of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, A Range, Jaipur, an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal on behalf of the Revenue, which appeal was filed on September 10, 1980. Along with the appeal, a certified copy of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not file...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »