Rajasthan Court August 1992 Judgments
A.K. Gupta Vs. the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC12; 1992(2)WLN205
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by A.K. Gupta challenging the order of dismissal of his appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal)2. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were appointed as substantive Sub-Engineers (Mech.) in the Public Works Department, Jaipur. Respondent No. 4 was senior to the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for regular promotions to the post of the Assistant Engineers (Mech.) but on account of adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report, 1973-74 of respondent No. 4 he was not given promotion against the vacancies of the 1976. As a result of the adverse remarks the petitioner superseded respondent No. 4 and obtained promotion on 25th December, 1976.3. On not being promoted, respondent No. 4 preferred a representation to the Chief Engineer, which was allowed and th...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Sidhu Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC135; 1992(2)WLN123
R.S. Verma, J.1. Petitioner J.S. Sidhu, respondent N.S. Pal and intervenor F.M. Golani all of them-are members of Rajasthan Ground Water Board Service constituted under the Rajasthan Ground Water Board Service Rules, 1969 (for short the service rules). The controversy involved in this writ petition has a chequered history and while petitioner claims seniority over respondent Pal & intervenor Golani, Pal and Golani claim seniority over him.2. Petitioner holds A.M.I.E. certificate in Mechanical Engineering which is equivalent to Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering. He entered Government service in 1964 as Demonstrator under the Directorate of Technical Education. Later on petitioner was selected for the post of Lecturer under the said Directorate by a duly constituted Selection Committee, the post being outside the purview of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the R.P.S.C.). This appointment was temporary. Petitioner joined this post on 15.7.1968. There was an economy ...
Tag this Judgment!Sachhiddanand Sharma Vs. Jaipur Development Authority
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLC542; 1992(2)WLN415
N.C. Kochar, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order dated 13.7.1992 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3026/91 by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the above said writ petition filed by the appellant. The brief facts are as under:2. The appellant is a member of Shri Moji Hosing Co- operative Society Ltd., Jaipur (the Society) and the society allotted to him a plot bearing No. 15 measuring 400 Sq. yards in the Society's Housing Scheme situated at Jawahar Lal Nehru Highway, Jaipur on 1.11.1979. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner alleging that since he wanted to construct a house on the abovesaid plot he applied for permission for doing so vide application dated 18.1.1990 (Annex. 16.) but no action was taken by the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority and as such, he sent notice dated 15.2.1991 (Annex. 9) under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Jaipur Development Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Shukla Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)149
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition was prayed that the order dated 20.7.1982 (Annex.8) as well as the order of removal from service dated 13.8.1981 (Annex.6) may be declared illegal and the respondents may be directed to put back the petitioner in service as if he was never removed from service. It is also prayed that he may be given all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the service of the Government of Rajasthan is Assistant Teacher on 11.1.1949. The petitioner was everytually promoted as Senior Teacher vide order dated 9.9.1961. This was after due selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Senior Teacher in Economics. While the petitioner was working as Senior Teacher, he sought one year's extraordinary leave and permission to avail appointment as Lecturer in the Vidya Bhawan. Teachers Training College. He sent on...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)154
N.K. Jain, J.1. The petition is directed against the order of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat dt. 18.1.92 in criminal case No. 164/91, whereby he has dismissed the application for preliminary enquiry, filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C.2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I deem it is just and proper to direct the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat to conduct preliminary enquiry and thereafter to deliver Matador bearing No. RPA 6555 to the person who is found to he entitled. Both the parties agree that they will remain present before the concerned Magistrate on 4th September, 1992. It is expected of the learned A.C.J.M. that he will complete the preliminary enquiry at the earliest possible but not later than 45 days arid after completion of enquiry deliver the aforesaid vehicle to the person who is entitled for that. Record of the case may be sent back immediately.3. The petition stands disposed of with th...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Chand Vs. Shanker Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)147
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated September 13, 1989, passed by the Munslf and Judicial Magistrate, Banner, by which the learned Munsif dismissed the application under Order 21 rule 97 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner on the ground of res judicata.2. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession of the disputed premises against Shanker Lal on the basis of the title in the Court of the Munsif, Bikaner. That suit, filed by the plaintiff, was decreed by the learned Munsif by its decree and judgment dated September 11, 1979. Dissatisfied with the decree and judgment passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bikaner. In the appeal, no stay was granted by the learned District Judge in favour of the judgment-debtor (appellant). During the pendency of the appeal before the learned District Judge, Bikaner, the decree-holder moved an application under Order 2...
Tag this Judgment!Dhan Raj Purohit Vs. L.Rs. of Ramswaroop and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC376; 1992(2)WLN98
N.K. Jain, J.1. The appellant-defendant No. 1 filed an appeal on 5.9.88 against the judgment and decree dt. 11.8.86 passed by the Dist. Judge, Bikaner. The appeal was admitted on 9.9.88 subject to the objection of limitation. On 1.5.89 on the application seeking review/clarification of the order dt. 15.12.88, it was ordered that it is open to Mr. Chacha to argue the preliminary objection regarding limitation at the time when the appeals are listed for hearing. It was also ordered that the case be listed alongwith S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 87/86 arising out of the judgment and final decree passed by the District Judge, Bikaner on 11.8.86 filed by the defendant who is respondent No. 4 in this appeal. Both the cases have come up before me on 19.8.92.2. Before proceeding with the case Mr. B.L. Purohit, respondent No. 3 moved an application dt. 19.8.92 that on earlier occasion when the case was heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur, there were some suggestions for compromise and the ca...
Tag this Judgment!R.L. Goyal and 5 ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN113
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All these special appeals involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the convenient disposal of all these appeals, the facts given in the case of R.L. Goyal v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 405 of 1992 are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner is an existing operator of the existing route Bharatpur to Basedi and holds one non-temporary stage carriage permit which is valid upto 20.11.1994. A draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1939') was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 25.7.1986 inviting objections with regard to the aforesaid route. Formerly the Special Secretary (Home) was hearing the objections but vide notification dated 17.9.1990 the Secretary, Transport Department Rajasthan, Jaipur was appointed to hear and decide the objections. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and a new Act, na...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Sareen Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR207(Raj)
ORDER OF CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY Office of the Tax Recovery Officer Messrs. Pee Vee and Co., Jaipur, purchased for Rs. 1,20,000 the immovable property specified below at a sale under Rule 66 on March 28, 1981, in execution of certificate No. 2797/190/353 dated September 7, 1979, forwarded by the Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Jaipur, for recovery of arrearsfrom Messrs. P. H. Rai, Hakikatrai and Hansrai (Hindu undivided family). The full amount of the purchase money to the extent of the arrears has been paid on March 20, 1981. No application under Rule 60/Rule 61/Rule 62 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been received for setting aside the sale. Accordingly, the said sale is hereby confirmed. SPECIFICATION OF PROPERTY Flats Nos. 7, 8 and 9 in D-Villa, Station Road, Jaipur, owned by Shri P. H. Rai, member of the aforesaid Hindu undivided family. Given under my hand and seal at Jaipur this 28th day of March, 1981. (Sd.)Tax Recovery Officer(Income-t...
Tag this Judgment!Some Dutt Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)145
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It appears that the petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Case No. 202/78 in the court of Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur for the offence under Section 353 & 342, IPC. From the order of the trial court, it also appears that he absented from appearing in the Court on 30.10.85 and thereafter. The petitioner then approached to the Court of Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, but the same was rejected on 5.2.92. The plea of the petitioner was that similar offences were withdrawn by the Government and he was given understanty that his case also stood withdrawn as such he did not appear in the Court without any deliberate intention to avoid the trial. The learned Counsel further submits that the offences under which, the petitioner was facing trial are bailable.2. It appears that on more than one occasions the petitioner did not appear in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »