Rajasthan Court August 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.
Suresh Chandra Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN501
I.S. Israni, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the State Government to carry forward one remaining post from non-gazetted employees' quota of 1982 examinations to the results of the succeeding year, i.e., 1983 examinations. It is further prayed that by rounding of the figure of Order 98, one seat should have been reserved for NGE in Rajasthan Co-operative Service Examination, held in the year, 1983.2. Briefly, the petitioner is a non-gazetted employee. He possessed all necessary qualifications and appeared as non-gazetted employee in the examination of Rajasthan State (RAS etc.) & Suboradinate Services (RTS etc.) Combined Competitive Examination, 1983, which was conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. The petitioner's name appeared at No. 200 in the result (Anx. 5), which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette, 1984. In 1983, there were three posts reserved for non-gazetted employees (NGE). All the three reserved seats were filled-up by...
The Oil Seed Mills Karamchari Mazdoor Union Vs. the State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ544Raj
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from engaging contract labour and for reinstating the nelpers and other workers if their services are terminated during the pendency of the writ petition. The facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.2. The Ganganagar Co-operative Oil Seed Processing Mills Ltd. (hereinafter to be called 'the Mills') (Respondent No. 5) is an instrumentality of the State. It manufactures edible oils. Power connection has been taken by it from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board as a non-seasonal establishment. It has been decided to start a solvent plant and the extension work is at its primary stage. There have been settlements in the year 1985 and 1988 in between the petitioner Union and the Respondent No. 5. The services of the members of the petitioner Union are governed by the Standing Orders duly certified under the Industrial Disputes (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It has nowhere bee...
Nem Kumar Tholia Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR371(Raj)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this reference, made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions for the consideration of this court:'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty provisions which govern the levy of a penalty in a case are those which exist on the date on which the return is filed and that the law as in force on the first day of the assessment year will not govern the levy of penalty ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstnaces of the case, the Tribunal was justified in applying the law of penalty contained in Section 271(1 )(c) as it stood on April 10, 1969, after the date on which the returns for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 were filed ?' 2. This reference relates to the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68.3. The assesse...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. L. K. Kasliwal and Another.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)99CTR(Raj)60; [1992]195ITR477(Raj); [1992]63TAXMAN121(Raj)
M. B. SHARMA J., - This order will dispose of the above numbered wealth-tax reference applications. Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 36 of 1990 is for the assessment year 1968-69 by the Revenue in the case of L. K. Kasliwal, partner of M/s. Gem Palace, M. I. Road, Jaipur. For the same assessment year, Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 44 of 1990 is in respect of one Roshanlal, another partner of the said firm. Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 37 of 1990 is for the assessment year 1969-70 in respect of L. K. Kasliwal, one of the partners of M/s. Gem Palace, M. I. Road, Jaipur. Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 4 of 1991 is for the same assessment year in the case of Roshanlal Kasliwal for the same firm. Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 42 of 1990 is for the assessment year 1970-71 in the case Roshanlal Kasliwal. Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 43 of 1990 is for the assessment year 1971-72 and Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 41 of 1990 is for the assessment ye...
Balram Vs. Manoharlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)301
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant tenant against the judgment of the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Udaipur dated May 8, 1991 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the learned Munsif, Udaipur City (North) dated September 29, 1986, decreeing the suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity.2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned lower appellate court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the same has been mis-read. This is not correct. No particular portion of the evidence was pointed out to show that it was mis-read or was not properly appreciated. After thorough discussion of the evidence on record, the learned appellate court has come to a concurrent finding of fact that the suit premises is resonably and bona fide required by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Manoharlal for ...
SatyanaraIn Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)298
Farooq Hasan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The case against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC is pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and in that case five witnesses have been examined but on the date when the Statement of the witnesses were to be recorded counsel for the accused-petitioner was not present and a prayer was made by the accused-persons. But the learned trial Court did not allow the prayer of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.12.1984 an application was filed by the petitioner with this prayer that the eye witnesses whose statements have already been recorded be recalled for cross-examination. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that many opportunities were given to the accused-petitioner to cross-examine the eye witnesses and the witnesses were recalled and they were present in the Court but because of the absence of the counsel for the accused persons the witnesses were not cross-examined. T...
Keshra Ram and Five ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLC346; 1991WLN(UC)177
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a criminal appeal filed by six accused appellants, who were tried by the Sessions Judge, Sikar, and who, by his judgment dated March 18, 1983, were found guilty for offences under sections 147, 307 read with Section 149, 325 read with Section 149, 323 and 342 IPC. Each, of them were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence Under Section 147 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence Under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence Under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC, six months r.i. for offence Under Section 323 IPC, and for three months rigorous imprisonment for offence Under Section 342 IPC, apart from the fine imposed.2. The prosecution case is that, on Nov. 17, 1981, Pooran Mal PW. 1, who is resident of village Chainpura in district Sikar was returning to his village at between 7.00 and 8.00 p.m. from sikar after selling the milk. He heard a noise coming from the si...
Vijay Singh Vs. Raj. State Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)307
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Petitioner has made a prayer that the respondents be directed to issue appointment order in his favour appointing him as Conductor. It has, also been prayed that respondents be directed to fix the seniority with retrospective effect.2. A selection for appointment on the post of Conductor was held for the Nagaur Depot of the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation) and a list of selected candidate was prepared. Petitioner's name was placed at Sr. No. 44 in the panel so prepared. The penal was sent by the Ajmer Division, under whose jurisdiction Depot falls. Later on, the panel has sent to the Divisional Manager, Udaipur for inquiry and verification in respect of the selected candidates to find out as to whether any candidate had worked earlier in the service of the Corporation. On the basis of inquiry made by the Divisional Manager of Udaipur Division, an information was sent by the Divisional Manager, Jodhpur that the petitioner was in employ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›