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.
Abdul Rehman Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Prasadilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC260; 1994(1)WLN78
R.S. Verma, J.1. This appeal by defendant Abdual Rehman is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirohi, whereby suit of respondent-firm Rameshwar Dayal Prasadilal, a registered partner-ship firm, has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,22096/- with interest vide judgment dated 27.5.1978. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff- respondent is that it is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in the name and style of Rameshwar Dayal Prasadilal at Abu Road. Abdul Rehman had money dealings with the plaintiff- firm and the account of Abdul Rehman with the firm was settled on 20.7.1974 and a sum of Rs. 1,07,101/- was found due. Abdul Rehman stipulated to re-pay amount with interest at the rate of 1% per month and executed a promissory note in this regard. The plaintiff-firm demanded the amount a number of times but no payment was made and eventually written notice was served on Abdul Rehman on 6.5.75 but he did not accept the notice. Upon suc...
Roshan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN144
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. I have perused the writ petition.2. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order passed by the Government dated 26.7.1991 (Anx.4) may be quashed.3. The petitioner is residing in the Ame town and he is interested in the advancement of woman education and this writ petition has been filed by him as a public interest litigation because an order has been passed by the Dy. Secretary to the Chief Minister dated 26.7.1991 directing the Collector to get, the School Knaya Prathmik Vidhyalaya which is running in the building of Shiv Prakash Chhatravas belonging to the respondent No. 3 be vacated within a period of 15 days as desired by the Chief Minister.4. No reply has been filed by the State.5. I need not to comment on this kind of order. However, since it is a woman school which is running in this premises and according to the reply filed by the respondent No. 3 that new building is ready for housing this school in all...
Cachet Pharmuceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. Riico Industrial Area Vs. the State ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN388
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the assessee, which is a private limited Company, challenges the demand of Rs. 3,06,60,879.89 raised by the District Excise Officer, Alwar (respondent No. 3) to be invalid and illegal and has, therefore, prayed to quash the Demand Notice dated July 9, 1991 (Annexure 5). The circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition may be narrated:2. The Company was manufacturing patent/proprietary medicines containing alcohol having its manufacturing unit in RIICO industrial Area, Bhiwadi in Alwar District. It had started production of pharmaceutical formations by using alcohol from August 27, 1987, and was paying excise duty to the State of Rajasthan. It is stated that the Company has stopped manufacturing medicines for the time being from August, 1992 for the reasons mentioned in para 11 of the writ petition. The products of the Company were liable to excise duty under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Ex...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN1
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All the three writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions the facts given in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Slate of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2141 of 1991 are taken into consideration:3 The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order dated 30.6.1990 may be declared illegal and be quashed and the petitioner be allowed to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years or till 30th June following thereafter. In the alternative, it is prayed that in case for allowing the petitioner to continue upto 60 years of age and the provisions contained in Rule 3 (16) of the Grant-in-Aid Rules which fixes the age of superannuation as 58 years of the Teachers working in Government aided school or colleges., comes in the way of the petitioner then to this extent the same may be declared illegal and be struck down.4. The...
Ram Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLC480; 1994(1)WLN25
R.S. Verma, J.1. These two appeals pertain to the same incident and involve identical questions of fact and law, based on identical evidence. Hence, they have been heard together with consent of all concerned and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. In nut-shell the prosecution story is that on 6.8.1992 Shri Virendra Jakhar, S.H.O. P.S. Bhirani, Shri Tara Chand, S.H.O., P.S., Bhadra and Shri Atar Singh Shigh, S.H.O., P.S., Nohar were proceeding along with members of the staff on the road connecting village Daidas to Lal Khan's Dhani. They spotted two persons, namely, Ram Kumar Singh and Mahesh. The police officers suspected that the two persons were carrying opium with them. Hence, the aforesaid police officers accosted both these persons. Atar Singh informed these persons that if they so wanted, they could be searched in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Both these persons, namely, Ram Kumar Singh and Mahesh consented to searches being made by Atar Singh. Upon t...
Haru Ram Vs. Vikasadhaikri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN126
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Jeep Driver in the Office of the Vikas Adkhkari, Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghnagar, vide order dated 19-8-78. The appointment of the petitioner was made on temporary basis for a period of six months. This term of appointment of the petitioner was extended upto 20.8.79. Thereafter the term of the petitioner's appointment on the post of Jeep Driver was not extended but, however, he was allowed to continue on the post upto 1.10.80. One Mr. Raghunath was working as a driver with the respondents, whose services were terminated on 1.9.75, by the Vikas Adhikari and he filed an appeal before the State Government challenging the termination of his services. The appeal, filed by Raghunath was allowed by the State Government vide order dated 26.9.90, and while allowing his appeal, the State Government directed the respondent to re-employ Raghunath, Driver, immediately on the post in question. Certain other directions were, also, issued by the State...
Hanuman Prasad Meena Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj231; 1994(1)WLC255; 1994(1)WLN222
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is required to examine the action of a statutory body, i.e., the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur (for short 'the Board') in the matter of allotment/disposal of houses under 'Parijat' scheme. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to have the conspectus of the facts involved.2. The petitioner had applied for allotment a house in Sawaimadhopur town in the category 'Middle Income Group-B', as back as, in the year 1981 and his seniority was fixed at No. 3 by the Board. He deposited Rs. 12,000/- in two instalments as earnest money. Before he could be allotted a house, he was transferred to Jaipur. He, therefore, applied to the Board on 22-12-1988 for transfer of his registration from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur. The Chief Estate Manager of the Board vide his letter dated 14-3-1989 informed the petitioner that his registration could be changed for Jaipur under 'Parijat' scheme. ...
Baijoo Sales Vs. Regl. Dir., Esic and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1994
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR977]; (1994)IILLJ683Raj
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This appeal, under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, has been filed by M/s. Baijoo Sales, Jaipur against the order of the Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Jaipur dated May 12, 1987 rejecting the application filed by the appellant.2. The brief facts of the case are these. The appellant-M/s. Baijoo Sales, Jobner Bagh, State Road, Jaipur was engaged in the work of wood cutting, wood plaining and wood drilling. The factory of the appellant was inspected by the respondent No. 1. He prepared his Inspection Report dt. August 29, 1982. As per his report, he was of the view that the appellant-establishment came to be covered with effect from August 20, 1982 by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). The appellant contested the coverage by the letter dt. August 30, 1984. The respondent No. 1 -The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur, without taking care of the protest made by...
Rajasthan State R.T.C. Jaipur Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1994
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC532
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The question involved, in this petition, relates to the right of a person, to obtain a Stage Carriage or Contract Carriage (including temporary) permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') or a special permit under Sub-section (8) of Section 88 to ply a public service vehicle on routes or portions thereof in respect of which a scheme approved under Section 100(3) of the Actor Section 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Old Act') providing exclusive operation of stage or contract carriages on the said routes by a State Transport Undertaking to the complete exclusion of all other persons has been brought into force. This question arose on issuing permits at the time of Keladevi fair. The prayer made in the writ petition may be reproduced as under:It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, orde...
Tarsem Chand Vs. Smt. Padma Rani and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj160
1. The matter comes up for orders on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The office has objected that the appeal is barred by time by one day. This was so as per the endorsement made on the back of the decree-sheet where the date of presentation of the application as well as delivery of the copy of the decree was mentioned as 18-7-92. However, on each page of the judgment as well as on the front of the decree-sheet, the date of presentation of the application was stated to be 17-7-92. In these circumstances, the counsel presenting the appeal, counted 2 days for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree and presented the appeal treating it to be within time. It may be noticed that in the endorsement at the back of the certified copy of the judgment, the date of presentation of the application was mentioned to be 19-7-92, which obviously appears to be wrong, inasmuch as the copy of the judgment as well as decree was delivered on 18-7-92, about which there is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »