Rajasthan Court January 1994 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.
Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT493(Raj); 1994(1)WLC464; 1994(1)WLN70
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the impugned notices dated 23-11-1979, 22-5-1980, 20-2-1981 and 20-3-1982 (Annexs. 3,4,5 and 8 respectively) issued by the respondent No. 3 may be quashed and it may be declared that the respondents are not entitled to realise any duty from the petitioner on the basis of the value of rails supplied by the Railway Boards to the petitioner in respect of the period prior to 1-4-1981.2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and its Head Office and registered office are at Calcutta. The petitioner owns an industrial unit known as General Engineering Works (G.E.W.) at Bharatpur and carrying on the business of manufacturing of railway points and crossings amongst other items. The railway points and crossings (Switchess and Crossings) are being excisable to central excise duty under Item No. 68 First Schedule (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tariff) appended ...
Naresh Kamal Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN59
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has proved that the charge-sheet Annexure.6, served upon the petitioner on 20-3-92, may be quashed and the enquiry initiated against the petitioner, may be dropped.2. The petitioner is working as Senior Assistant Malaria Officer at Ganganagar. A charge-sheet date 27-2-92 (Annexure.6) under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, was served upon the petitioner, by which he was asked to make, a representation within twenty-one Days from the date of the charge-sheet and plead his case. This charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 20-3-93. The petitioner filed a representation and, also, made a request to the respondents for providing him an opportunity of personal hearing and, also, for the supply of the copies of certain documents including the copy of the preliminary inquiry report. The petition was afforded the opportunity of personal hearing and to inspect the record but th...
Laxman Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC168; 1994(1)WLN152
B.R. Arora, J. 1. Petitioner Laxman Lal was working as Police Constable at Police Station, Sarada, district Udaipur. On 20.11.83, an F.I.R. was lodged by Badri Lal, Assistant Sub- Inspector Police, at Police Station, Sarada, against the petitioner. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that on 18.11.83 the petitioner was deputed as a Watchman in the Police Station by the Station House Officer. The petitioner was of the view that this duty of watchman was assigned to him on the complaint made by complainant Badri Lal and, therefore, threatened him of dire consequences. On 19.11.83, when the complainant was sleeping in his quarter, the petitioner, armed with a knife, entered into the house of the complainant, tried to throttle him and give beatings to him. The complainant got himself rescued and went out of the house. The accused-petitioner followed him but ultimately with the help of Kishan Singh, S.H.O. and Bala Ram, Head Constable, he was rescued. The petitioner, also, gave a threat at th...
Rajendra Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC722; 1994(1)WLN262
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioners, by this writ petition, have prayed that the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner No. 1, viz., Rajendra Singh, on the post of Driver in the Animal Husbandry Department of the respondents under the provisions of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servant Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975. The case of the petitioner is that late (Shri) Jas Raj S/o Shri Nawal Singh, was serving as Compunder in the Animal Husbandry Department. While in service, Jas Raj breathed his last on 30.6.1965 at the age of the 40 years. Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Pooni Devi is the widow of Jas Raj and Jas Raj has three daughters who all are married now. The deceased has no son and, therefore, the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Pooni Devi adopted the petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh on 23.7.1992. After the adoption of petitioner No. 1, the petitioner moved an application on 23.7.92 for giving him appointment under the Rules, 1975, but the petiti...
Smt. Durga Devi Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj238; 1994(1)WLN55
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 21-10-1993 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. In Udaipur Region, there is an existing route known as Udaipur-Sayara extended upto Palasama as shown in the rough sketch map, which has been placed on the record as Annex. 1. The petitioner submitted an application before the R.T.A., Udaipur for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the Udaipur to Sayara extended upto Palasma existing route via Iswal, Kelwada, Bhanpura, Sayara. The R.T.A. directed its Secretary for sending a Circulation note. The Secretary 'to the R.T.A., Udaipur in pursuance of the order of the R.T.A., Udaipur sent a Circulation note to the R.T.A., Udaipur which came to be considered by the authority on 13-7-1993. The R.T.A., Udaipur granted a non-temporary stage permit in favour of the petitioner on 13-7-1993. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid grant made by the R.T.A., Udai...
ishwari Prasad and ors. Vs. Murari Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN311a
V.S. Dave, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties add perused the order passed by the revisional court.2. I am not inclined to discuss the merits of the case as it may prejudice the case of either party. Since I intend to pass an order of remand in my opinion, the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, is absolutely cryptic and is not a speaking order. When the trial-court has passed a reasoned order and if he had exceeded his jurisdiction it was essential to the revisional court to have stated in this order while reversing the finding of the trial-court. It is always essential that the reasons should be assigned for setting-aside the order. In para two of the order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, has only stated what has mentioned in the complaint. In para three, he says, he has perused the record and took cognizance. Nothing has been mentioned as to why he considered it to be a fit case for interference.3. I, therefore, deem it proper to set-aside the order and rema...
Kishan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC235; 1994(1)WLN133
N.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed Under Section 374(2) Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dt. 27.1.1987 whereby he has convicted the accused-appellants viz. Kishan Singh & Govind Singh for the offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and sentenced both the appellants to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further one year's R.I.2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that one Sohanlal s/o Budha Ram submitted a written report (Ex.P.22) before the S.H.O. P.S. Soorsagar on 24.2.1985 at 2.15 P.M. alleging that his sister Kalpana was married with one Govind Singh s/o Asu Singh on 7.6.77. It was alleged that for the last five years Kalpana was living with his father. Out of their wedlock one male child Azad Singh was borned, who is living with Govind Singh. It was also alleged that for the custody of child a case is pending in the court of Distt. Judge, Jo...
Man Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN13
R.S. Verma, J.1. This case raises a piquant situation. Six persons are being tried in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi for offences Under Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, IPC. Accused petitioners Arjun singh, Khet Singh and Man Singh filed S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Pet. No. 1199/92 before this Court. The petitioners were represented by Shri B.S. Rathore and Shri B.S. Bhali, P.P. appeared on behalf of the Slate. Shri Surendra Surana appeared on behalf of the complainant. This application was heard by Hon'ble Y.R. Meena, Vacation Judge, The application was not pressed and was dismissed on 26.6.92 with liberty to file a fresh application for bail after three months.2. Arjun Singh, Khet Singh and Man Singh moved a second application for bail being S.B. Cr. Misc. Second Bail Application No. 1978/92. The petitioners were represented by Shri Pradeep Shah, Advocate. Shri Deoraj Bohra, P.P. appeared on behalf of the State and Shri Surendra Surana appeared for the complainant. The matter was he...
Kumari Renu Chauhan Vs. the Government College and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLC411; 1994(1)WLN150
1. This special appeal has been filed against the order dated 8th January, 1993 by which the restoration application of the appellant was dismissed on the ground; that sufficient cause for absence in the date of dismissed of the writ petition was not made out.2. The facts in brief are that a writ petition was filed by the present appellant for seeking admission to LL.B. 1st year course in Government College, Ajmer. On this writ petition an order was passed on 21st November, 1989 that provisional admission be given to her in LL.B. 1st year provided there remains vacancy available for admission after giving admission to the aspirants candidates who possess 45% marks and who have applied for admission. Thereafter, the writ petition remained pending and was adjourned from time to time on the request of the counsel for the parties. On 6th May, 1992 no one was present for the counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Soral, counsel for the respondent No. 3 was present and the writ petition wa...
Mahipal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj1; 1994(1)WLN89
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioners to join the training course of laboratory technician at the place opted by them.2. This writ petition has been filed by three persons espousing the same cause. The Medical and Health Department advertised the training course of the laboratory technician and for that they invited applications from the candidates who have passed secondary examination in the Scheme of 10 + 2 as recognised by the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioners applied for this course. The petitioner No. 1 passed secondary examination with Mathematics and other subjects viz., Biology and two science subjects i.e. Physics and Chemistry. The petitioner No. 2 passed secondary examination in the desired subjects i.e. Biology, Physics and Chemistry. The petitioner No. 3 also passed secondary examination in Biology, Chemistry and Physics. All the three petitioners applied for the course ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »