Rajasthan Court January 1992 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.
Dr. Anurag Gupta Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN132
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, after passing the M.B.B.S. Examination in the year 1986 from Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, completed his internship and got himself registered with the Medical Council of Rajasthan in the year 1988. He did his Housemanship from Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi in Surgery and Casuality [Orthopaedics). He did his Housemanship in Surgery for a period of five months Since August 1, 1988 to December 31, 1988 and for 7 months (1 month in Surgery & 6 months in Orthopaedics) in the Department of Casualty since January 1, 1989 to July 31, 1989. After completing his Housemanship in Surgery and Orthopaedics in response to the notice dated April 2,1990, he applied for admission to II-year Residency Course in Pathology under the Three Years Resinency Programme, 1988. This application of the petitioner, alongwith other candidates, viz., Dr. N.K. Vaidhya and Dr. S.P. Vyas was considered and as the petitioner had not completed one year Housemanship in the subject ...
Jodhpur Region Pwd (B and R) Majdoor Sangh [intak] Vs. the State of Ra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN195
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner, Jodhpur Region PWD [B & R] Majdoor Sangh (INTAK), Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangh') has filed this writ petition on behalf of workmen whose names, as mentioned in the Schedule appended with the writ petition are as under:1. Shri Kanwara Ram s/o Jiya Ram2. Shri Ranaram s/o Ghewar Ram3. Shri Ghwarram s/o Shri Bhikharam4. Smt. Ganga w/o Shri Kanwara Ram5. Shri Andaram s/o Shri Bhikharam6. Shri Bhanwara Ram s/o Shri Dungarram7. Shri Alabux s/o Ibru Khan8. Shri Nimbaram s/o Shri Sonaram9. Shri Kishna Ram s/o Koja Ram10. Shri Bhanwarlal s/o Bhinya Ram11. Shri Bhannaram s/o Girdhariram12. Shri Ganpatsingh s/o Khinvsingh13. Shri Sonaram s/o Shri Hirkanram14. Shri Natharam s/o Shri Pratapram 15. Shri Goparam s/o Shri Jiyaram16. Shri Madangopal s/o Shri I-Bux17. Shri Gopa Ram s/o Shri Nimbaram 18. Shri Ramdayal s/o Shri Suganchand19. Shri Jogsingh s/o Shri Jorshing20. Shri Mahesh Kumar s/o Purshotam21. Shri Babupuri s/o Shri Lalpuri22. Shri Bhawa...
Laxman Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1991(1)WLC56; 1992(1)WLN275
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner contends that he was appointed at first in February, 1983 on musterroll in Public Health and Engineering Department, City Division, Jodhpur. His grievance is that vide order dated 18.3.1988, seven persons named therein, who were appointed later than the petitioner, were declared semi- permanent work-charged Helper. The petitioner's name was not included therein. The petitioner claims for the relief that he too should be declared semipermanent with effect from 1st February, 1985; on completion of two years of service.2. A reply has been filed in which it has been stated that petitioner was first appointed in February, 1983 but he voluntarily left work on 30th April, 1 983. Afterwards, on 1.8.1983 he was again engaged on muster-roll on daily wages. It is not disputed that since then he is continuing. A rejoinder has been filed stating that it is not correct to say that petitioner left at his own accord on 30th April, 1983 but his services were terminated...
Jaswant Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC695; 1992(1)WLN276
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner seeks mandamus for appointment to be given to him under Rajasthan [Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants dying while in service) Rules, 1975 [for short, the Rules of 1 975'). The petitioner states that his brother Lalit Singh on whom he was fully dependent, was serving as Government servant since 1 981. Said Lalit Singh expired on 29.7.1 989 while he was serving as class IV employee in the Office of Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Circle Salumber. At the time of death of said Lalit Singh, he was 27 years of age and was un-married. In the absence of any other member of the family, his widow or children, the petitioner contends that as a brother, he was entitled to be offered a job under the aforesaid Rules. By letter dated 21.4.1990, it was communicated to the petitioner that he does not come within the definition of 'family' of deceased Government Servant, given under the Rules, as such, his proposal for appointment cannot be acco...
Renu Tandon Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT375(Raj)
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner is the sole owner of an industrial unit situated at A-14-A, Industrial Estate, 22 Godown, Jaipur, engaged in the manufacture of copper wire from ingots of wires of higher gauge to thinner gauges. Wire drawing machines were installed in the month of August, 1989 when the Unit was established. The petitioner filed an application before the Joint Director, Industries Deptt. Jaipur and obtained provisional registration certificate dated 30th May, 1989 (Annexure-1). The petitioner took on rent a portion of an industrial shed owned by M/s. Tandon Brothers on a monthly rent of Rs. 715/-, vide rent note (Annexure-2) which was duly approved by the Rajasthan Industrial and Development Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'RICCO'), on 11-10-1989. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Supdt, Central Excise on 15-9-1989 for the grant of licence to manufacture co...
Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan Vs. the State of Rajasth ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN104
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner has moved this application stating therein that while granting the stay, this Court directed the respondents not to take corecive steps for the recovery of the amount of land-tax as and royalty relating to the period prior to August 30, 1991. The case of the petitioner is that though a specific direction was given by this Court while granting the stay on December 12,1991, not to take coercive steps for the realisation of the land-tax, but still the respondents are taking the coercive steps, namely by not issuing the 'RAWANA' book. No Dues Certificate, and deliberately keeping the Renewal application pending in order to recover the land-tax, which according to law is not payable and regarding which the stay has been granted by this Court . The detention of the 'RAWANA' book and not issuing the 'No Dues Certificate' as well as not renewing the lease of the petitioner and deliberately keeping the renewal application pending amount to taking coercive steps f...
Ashok Kriplani Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN272
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner has raised a short question--whether the petitioner is entitled to current emoluments or not ?. The circumstances giving rise to the petition are as under:2. The petitioner was appointed in the Public Works Department of the State of. Rajasthan as result of selection through R.P.S.C. examination held in 1983 as an L.D.C; The petitioner left the office after taking two days' leave on 30th September, 1985 which the petitioner urges to have been extended from time to time. Ultimately, he reported for his duties in the month of April, 1990 but he was not allowed to join the duties. Vide order Ex. 2 dated 11.4.1 990, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for remaining wilfully absent from duties with effect from 30.9.1985. Vide order Ex. 3 dated 4.12.1990, an Inquiry Officer has been appointed by the Chief Engineer Public Works Department for submitting his report. It is common ground between the parties that the inquiry is still pending and no fina...
Lalia and Dhaniya Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN70
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 16, 1984, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant Dhaniya under Section 302 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Laliya under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The incident, which led to the prosecution of the present appellants, took place at about 1.00 p.m. on March 28,1983, in village Dhariyawar when Roopa a villager of village Dhariyawar - was murdered. The report of this incident was lodged at Police Station, Dhariyawar on March 28, 1983 at about 1.15 p.m. by Shambhu Nath (PW 4). The investigation of the case was conducted first by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Surendrapal Singh (PW 13) and subsequently by PW 16 Devipuri - the Station House Officer, Police Station, Dhariy...
Randhirmal Lodha Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN190
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner-Randhirmal, died during the pendency of the writ petition on 24-3-1991 and an application has been moved on behalf of his heirs and legal representatives whose names have been mentioned in the application dated 9-5-1991, that the effect that name of the petitioner Shri Randhirmal may be deleted and names of all the 6 applicants-Legal Representatives may be substituted as petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the application being allowed. The application is allowed. Smt. Sushila widow of late Randhirmal, Sarvashri Praveen, Pradeep, Pramod and Prakash Lodha, sons of late Randhirmal and Smt. Madhu daughter of late Randhimal are impleaded in place of petitioner late Shri Randhirmal.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that he has already filed the amended cause-title.3. That the request of both the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is heard on merits also.4. While the petitioner was serving as Depot Manag...
Suja and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Raj163; 1992WLN(UC)536
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decreedated 13-4-1985 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sambhar Lake in Civil Appeal No. 3/82 (1/84) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 1-2-1982 passed by thelearned Additional Munsif, Sambhar Lake in Civil Suit No. 4/73 (BT.1/81). The brief facts are as under: -2. Laxmi Narain (the deceased) was the khatedar of the agricultural land in dispute situated in village Phagi of district Jaipur. He died on 10-3-1958 and after his death Ram Narain (the defendant No. 1), claiming to be the adopted sort of the deceased, claimed the khatedari rights in respect of the above said land and mutation in his favour was sanctioned on 11-8-1958. The defendant No. 1 sold a part of the property in dispute to Bhoora Mehravar son of Ganga Bux (the defendant No. 2), a party to Jagdish son of Shri Bux. (defendant No. 3) and another part to Bajrang son of Suja (the defendant No. 4) an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »