Rajasthan Court March 1993 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.
Smt. Roopi Bai Vs. Mahaveer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj133
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. The Appeal No. 96 of 1992 is defendant's appeal arising out of a preliminary decree for pre-emption of the suit property passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 126 of 1985. 2. Mahaveer son of Bhanwarlal and Sunder Lal son of Bhanwarlal, two brothers, filed a suit for pre-emption of the property sold by defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 3) Vijay Singh to appellant-defendant No. 1 Smt. Roopi Bai, claiming their right to preempt the sale of property. The case of the plaintiffs is that the property in question is a part of a building originally owned by Pratap Singh Talesra, Vijay Singh Talesra and Chander Singh Talesra between whom the property was partitioned. The plaintiff-Mahaveer had purchased a part of share of Pratap Singh on February 12, 1982 and Sunder Lal another part of the share of Pratap Singh through another registered sale deed on February 12, 1982. At the time, they purchased ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Pink City (Trade Articles) Khudra Vikreta Sangh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj164; 1993(2)WLC485
Singhal, J.1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 6th August, 1992 wherein, the writ petition submitted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was allowed and it was declared that the incharge of the various depot from where the kerosene was being sold to the members of the petitioner Sangh are not bound to obey the verbal instructions/ directions of the District Supply Officer and that the members of the petitioner Sangh cannot be deprived from purchasing kerosene oil from the various godowns and to deal in them as retailers under the licenses which are still valid.2. The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General is two fold namely; the grant of license does not confer any right on the respondents to procure the kerosene oil and the appellants are not bound to sale the same to the respondents and that it is a policy matter in which the Court should not interfere and since no mala fide has been alleged or proved ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raja Narendra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR250(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated June 11, 1980, in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable in relation to the capital gains arising from the sale of parts of the property known as Binai House, Ajmer, for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the property known as Binai House was sold for a consideration of Rs. 90,000 to one Shri Ram Lal on conditional sale. The assessee has repurchased the said property on June 20, 1973, for the same consideration of Rs. 90,000 and sold it to different persons. In the assessment year 1974-75, the sales were effected as under:Rs.1.Dineshchand Agarwal27-2-197432,0002.Smt. Chikli Devi27-2-197431,0003.S...
Aditya Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ76Raj; 1993(3)WLC1
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the only prayer which has been made is that the petitioner should be declared entitled to infancy benefit under Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, from March 1, 1977.2. The petitioner-company installed a factory at Parbatsar District Nagpur, for manufacturing synthetic clothes in March, 1977. A notice was issued to the petitioner that the factory established is engaged in a scheduled industry, viz., textiles, under the Act of 1952, and has completed three years from the date of commencement of its production and that it has employed more than 50 employees and as such it was directed to implement the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder with effect from March 1, 1980, as per Annexure 1. Subsequently, superseding the earlier letter dated September 16, 1980, another letter was issued on January 26, 1981, in which the petitioner-...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ542Raj; 1993WLN(UC)129
B.R. Arora, J.1. These nine petitions involve a common question of law hence they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. To resolve the controversy, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4856 of 1992 R.S.R. T.C. v. Judge, Labour Court and Ors., are taken into consideration.2. Non-petitioner No. 2 was in the employment of the petitioner. Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No. 2 were initiated as per the Standing Orders. After holding proper enquiry, the disciplinary authority found the respondent No. 2 guilty and imposed the punishment of stoppage of ten annual grade increments. An industrial dispute was raised by the Union and the State Government referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Udaipur:D;k laHkkx izcU/kd] jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjokgufuxe] mn;iqj }kjk Jfed dh eatwj vfne ifjpkyd mn;iqj vkxjk dk ftldk izfrfuf/kRoftl rjg jksMost ,eIykbt izcU/kd x`g }kjk fd;k x;k gS nl okf'kZd osruizfN;ka dk tku...
Moti Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: 1994(73)ELT530(Raj); 1993WLN(UC)123
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, who is a resident of Merta and is a registered gold-smith, was detained by the Police Constable, G.R.P., at the Railway Station, Jodhpur. On search in the presence of the Preventive Officer of the Central Customs and Excise, Jodhpur, gold ornaments weighing 241.00 grams were found in a box which was being carried by him. The gold ornaments were seized in the presence of the petitioner and search memo EX.1 was prepared. The statement of the petitioner was, also, recorded under Section 70 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act'). In the statement recorded under Section 70 of the Act, the petitioner disclosed that he is a registered/certified gold-smith and he reached Jodhpur on 28-11-1972 at 12.00 noon and went to the shop of Bhanwar Lal Sunar and gave one necklace, two Punchies, one Rakhdi and one ear-ring for setting stones in them. Bhanwar Lal Sunar returned the ornaments to him after setting the stones therein. He further disclosed that ...
Govind Ram Vs. Jai NaraIn Vyas University
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)120
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner is a registered graduate of the University of Jodhpur and is serving in the University as Upper Division Clerk. The election to the Senate of the University of Jodhpur from the registered graduates constituency was held in the year 1988. The petitioner alongwith one Mr. Banshi Dhar Purohit contested the election and was declared elected as a Member of the Senate of the University of Jodhpur, for a period of five years under Clause XXIII Sub-division III of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Jodhpur University Act vide Notification dated June 13, 1988, issued by the Registrar of the University of Jodhpur. The petitioner represented as a Member of the Graduates Constituency in the Senate. Certain amendments were made in the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 by the Act No. 1 of 1992. By this amendment, the name of the University of Jodhpur was changed to Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. Cartain other provisions were, also, amended. Clause XXIII of Sub-Divi...
Man Singh Vs. Jalore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)126
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged his suspension order dated 3.12.1988 Ex. 1 passed by respondent No. 2 for contemplated disciplinary enquiry against him and prayed that despite specific mention therein that the subsistence allowance shall be paid to him, the respondents have neither paid him the suspension allowance nor conducted the disciplinary enquiry.3. The respondents in their counter have alleged that the petitioner has concealed material facts and narrated false facts to the effect that he had already found guilty of embezzlements after enquiry Under Section 74(2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act vide Annexure-R/1 dated 18.6.1987, Annexure-R/2 dated 27.2.88 and Annexure-R/3 dated 9.8.1988 and on this ground alone this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. They have further alleged that there were allegations against the petitioner that he had committed embezzlements in various Samitis, hence he was suspended ...
Satyaveer Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)138
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 1, 1986, passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 376 1PC2. The incident, which led to the prosecution of the appellant, took place on 15.10.85, at about 2.00 p.m. when Kumari Ratna (Aged about 9 years) was raped by the accused-appellant in the Rohi of Kanak Singh-the father of the prosecutrix. The incident was, also, witnessed by PW 3 Ishwar Singh and PW 5 Fateh Singh. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Hamirgrah, On 15.10.84, at 5.45 p.m. by Shri Kanak Singh-the father of the prosecutrix. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.84, at about 2.00 p.m. Kumari Ratna had gone to graze her cattle. The accused, at about 2.00 p.m. came there and demanded water-mellon from her. She gave water-mellon to him. Thereafter the accused caught-hold of her and committed rape upon her. Ishwar Singh (...
Smt. Nirmla Arora Vs. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)127
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner's husband late Shri Gopikishan Arora was working as Store Keeper in the Jodhpur Sahkari Up-Bhokta Whole-Sale Bhandar Ltd., Jodhpur (hereinafter referred as Bhandar) and his services were terminated by order dated 12th June, 1987 by the Liquidator of the said Bhandar. Shri Gopikishan Arora expired on 30.7.1987. On the report of respondent No. 2, the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur (respondent No. 1) issued notice dated 17.12.1988 (Annex. 2) under Section 74(1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (briefly the Act) asking her to appear before him and to show cause as to why enquiry be not made in respect of the embezzlement of R89,275.02 alleged to have been committed by late Shri Gopikishan Arora. The petitioner has contended that the notice Ex. 2 is clearly without jurisdiction and unauthorised and has been issued in order to harass her and prayed that the same be quashed and the respondents be res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »