Rajasthan Court August 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.
Sunil Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN47
J.R. Chopra, J.1. By order dated 5th November, 1990, a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petitions in Ashok Kumar Jangid v. State of Raj. and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 397 of 1990 and Shiv Charan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4247 of 1990 alongwith 90 other writ petitions appended thereto. Against that order, special appeals were filed on behalf of 49 petitioners. However, out of these 49 special appeals, 13 special appeals were got dismissed as not pressed because those appellants were granted admission in Rajasthan General Nursing Course (for short 'the RNRC Course') during the pendency of those special appeals and the remaining 36 special appeals, 18 of which pertain to these very petitioners except petitioner Khemraj and Om Prakash Yadav, were also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in Purshottam Dass v. State ofRajasthan D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 215 of 1990 and 35 other writ petitions, decided on 28...
Adarsh Metal Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT483(Raj)
Rajesh Bhalla, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm, having an industry of re-rollers, manufacturing stainless steel product known as 'Patta'. The product manufactured by the petitioner was initially classified as 'sheet' or 'strips', falling under Sub-item (ii) of the Tariff Item No. 26AA of the Tariff Schedule, as it was then existing, under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1944'). The petitioner claimed that the product manufactured by it properly fall to be classified under Sub-item No. (ia) of the erstwhile Tariff Item No. 26AA. The petitioner based his claim on a decision given in the case of M/s. CD. Industries, by the Appellate Tribunal on 1-6-1984 and in the case of M/s. Ae Vee Iron & Steel Works Private Limited, Bombay, dated 29-5-1985. The Assessing Authority, namely, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jodhpur, rejected the assessee-petitioner's claim. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The ...
Padma Ram S/O Deda Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)564
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a third bail application. The first was dismissed by me under order dated 13.5.92 and yet another ball application, the second one No. 2163/92 was dismissed by the Vacation Judge (V.K. Singhal J) under its detailed order on 6.7.92 running in 4-1/2 typed pages. The learned Vacation Judge under his order has dismissed the second bail application on merits and observed that the statements of the witnesses should be recorded as quickly as possible. It is given out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that two witnesses have been examined at pre-charge stage and charge has already been framed and there are as many as ten witnesses listed in the calendar of witnesses and trial is likely to take time. Learned Counsel further contended that -the seizure was by the police authorities and it was the police authorities who passed the smuggled goods silver and gold of the value of more than one crore to the Custom Authorities and, therefore, the provisions of Section...
Smt. Shanti Panchal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN46
1. By the Court. The petitioner has filed this special appeal against the order passed by learned Single Judge dt. 20th February, 1992.The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court praying that she may be paid all her post-retiral benefits i.e. pension, gratuity etc.2. The petitioner appellant was in service of Government of Rsjsthan and she retired as a Headmistress of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Gulabpura, Bhilwara w.e.f. 30th June, 1984, but her pension and post-retiral benefits were not given to her. Therefore, she filed this writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, her pension was released and the post retiral benefits were paid to her on 30th June, 1987, but the learned Single Judge has not granted any interest for wrongly withholding her pension and gratuity and other post retiral benefits.3. We have gone through the order of the learned Single Judge and the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant.4. It is unfortunate that this has become now ...
Om Prakash Vs. Hargovind Rajkumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Raj68; 1992(2)WLN93
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. This is judgment-debtor's revision directed against the order passed by learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Nohar in civil execution case No. 1/90 on 15-2-92 whereby his objection regarding jurisdiction has been rejected.2. Brief facts of the case are that the nonpetitioner decree-holder obtained a decree against the firm M/s. Nardurga Trading Co. and its four partners on 9-12-86 from the Court of Addl. Dist. Judge, Nohar of Rs. 1,96,264/-. The decree-holder moved an application for execution of the decree against one of the judgment-debtors Rameshwarlal, a partner of the firm. On an application by the judgment-debtor under Section 24, C.P.C., the execution case No. 10/88 was transferred from A.D.J. Court, Nohar to Addl. Dist. Judge Court No. 2, Hanumangarh vide order dt. 11-8-88. The property of judgment-debtor No. 2 Rameshwarlal was attached in the execution proceedings but the parties have entered into a compromise and after realising Rs. 30,000/- from the judgment-debto...
Singhal Brothers Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)159
R. Balia, J.1. The petitioner, who is a partnership firm and a license under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to the 'the Act), engaged in the business of sale and purchase of foodgrains at Flana; has filed this writ petition against the Krishi Upaj Mandi Semlti, Sumerpur, district-Pali, alleging that it is charging market-fee from the licencees transacting their business at Mandi premises but has not been providing the requisite facilities which the Mandi should provide at its yard and, therefore, the charge of market-fee from the petitioner and his likes is against the principle of quid pro quo.2. The respondents have filed return alongwith details of expenses incurred by the Agriculture Marketing Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee) during last five years and have also produced a chart (Ex, R. 2) conveying details of last 10 years' budget and actual income. It has also produced maps showing the projects which the Committee i...
Aditya Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN44
R.S. Verma, J.1. This writ petition has been finally heard at the admission stage with the consent of all concerned.The brief facts of this case are as follows:The petitioner was appointed on 15th May, 1986 under the respondents as a clerk on wages of Rs. 15/- per day. The petitioner was a work-charge employee and his name was entered in the muster-rolls. On 10th February, 1987, the petitioner was transferred under the respondent No. 3. He reported on duty to respondent No. 3 on 11th February, 1987. However, respondent No. 3 did not allow him to join. In these circurnstances, the petitioner filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 488/88. When that matter came up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Advocate submitted before the Court that in case the petitioner forgoes his claim for back wages and does not insist upon continuity of service, the Department is prepared to give fresh appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Store Keeper from the date he joins this post. ...
Rajendra and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN89
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order (Annexure 5) dated 13.2.1992 passed by the learned Chief Engineer,. Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Hanumangarh whereby the learned Chief Engineer has maintained the orders Annexure-3 dated 22.1.1990 passed by the learned Executive Engineer (Divisional Irrigation Officer) South Division, Sriganganagar and Annexure-4 dated 8.3.1990 passed by the learned Superintending Engineer (Superintending Irrigation Officer), Irrigation Circle, Sriganganagar as regards the change of water-course meant for filling the diggi, from which, the villagers of village chak 43 LNP, Tehsil Padampur take water.2. It is alleged that this diggi is situated in Square No. 80/238 and for filling up that diggi, a Naka (inlet) was sanctioned from Square No. 84/239. It is further alleged that in the year 1970, one Devsiram father of respondent No. 3 moved an application before the Executive Engineer for change of this Nakka from Square No. 84/239. ...
General Manager, Western Railway and ors. Vs. Authority Under Payment ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1066Raj; 1993(1)WLC641
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. An interesting question which arises for determination in this Revision Petition is as to whether jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes or District Court to hear Appeals against an order passed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short 'the Act of 1936') by a competent authority stands excluded by virtue of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'). 2. An application under Section 15(2) of1936 Act was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Authority appointed under the Act of 1936, Sawaimadhopur, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,42,874.12. Respondent No. 2 alleged that he has unlawfully been deprived of the benefits flowing from his retrospective promotion to the higher post. 3. After hearing the parties, the Authority appointed under the Act of 1936 passed an order dated August 31, 1990 under Section 15(3) ofthe Act and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,55,278.91 towards wages alongwith one time p...
Buddha Mal Vs. Meena and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC231
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This application for grant of leave to appeal is filed against the order of acquittal dated March 2, 1990 of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The case was instituted on a complaint filed by the petitioner on 20-4-84. The laid complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Manak Chowk, where a criminal case was registered. Thereafter, the police investigated the case and submitted a negative report on 7-4-84 that no offence was made out against the accused person.The Magistrate, thereafter, recorded the statement of the complainantandthe witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the accused-non-petitioner Ram Swaroop under Section 497 IPC and under Section 380 IPC against the non-petitioner Smt.Meera.2. Thereafter, the accused person appeared in the court to face the trial. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the defence witnesses, the trial court acquitted both t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »