Rajasthan Court February 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.
Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN496
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company and is a manufacturer of Cement in its Factory at Chittorgarh.2. As a part of its business activity for transportation of lime stone from the pit heads of mine to the crushers, the petitioner placed six orders for supply of six HM 1035 type dumpers to the Hindusthan Motors Limited, Tiruvulur, Tamil Nadu. The dumpers known as rear dump trucks were sold to the petitioner fitted with E-3 tyres, 2.3 CUN body extension and front suspension on cylinder as is apparent from Annexure/5, the invoice. For the purpose of transportation from the place of despatch viz. Menallathur to Chiltorgarh body and tyres were dismantled and sent separately that is apparent from despatch challan Annexure/4. The ease of the petitioner further is that out of the said six dumpers, three dumpers were cleared in the last week of July, 1993 by the Ratanpur check Post of the Commercial Taxes Department without demanding any entry tax. Two dumpers were detai...
Dr. Suresh Chand Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN363
M.R. Calla, J.1. This batch of five writ petitions arises out of the identical facts involving common questions of law and therefore, all these five writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment and order.2. All the petitioners in these writ petitions are regularly appointed Civil Assistant Surgeons in the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service, under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 (in short 'the Rules of 1963') and all of them are desirous of appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in the respective specialities, under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Collegiate Branch Rules'. In the case at hand, the dispute is about the selections held for urgent temporary appointments under Rule 30 of the Collegiate Branch Rules and in all the writ petitions the challenge has been thrown to the validity of the lost part of proviso (vi) to Rule 11(2) of the Collegiate Branch Rules. It is no...
Bhagirath Mal Rainwa Vs. the Judge, Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ960Raj; 1994(2)WLN194
G. S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether corruption in public services should be overlooked by the courts, whether the court should condone misappropriation, fraud, cheating and similar acts committed by public servant, and whether the court should be a silent and mute spectator of the growing corruption in public services and grant indulgence in cases of proved corruption by public servants? These are the moot questions which arise out of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner who has made strenuous efforts to persuade the court to annual the award dated September 1, 1993 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in reference case No. IT 35/1991.2. In order to make a detailed examination of the arguments advanced by learned counsel, it will be appropriate to make the brief reference of facts. The petitioner had been appointed in the service of the Corporation on June 25, 1986 on daily wages of Rs. 20 and was posted under Hindon Depot of the Corporation. His service was terminated afte...
Moti Chand Sukh Lal Kothari Vs. Kamla Devi W/O Ramswaroop Khandelwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN33
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is against the order dated December 16, 1993 by which the appellants-plaintiffs application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the defendant-respondent No. 1 Smt. Kamla Devi from executing the decree passed in favour of the defendant No. 1 Smt. Kamla Devi and against defendant No. 2 Sukh Lal Kothari on November 26, 1987 for eviction from the suit shop.2. Brief facts necessary for the present purpose may be noticed: The suit shop is situated at Udaipur which belongs to defendant No. 1 Smt. Kamla Devi. The shop was taken on rent by Sukh Lal defendant No. 2 on May 1, 1969. Thereafter on May 15, 1978, the landlord filed a suit for eviction against Sukh Lal inter alia on the ground that the suit shop is required reasonably and bonafide for occupation by the landlord's son. After filing the written statements in the former suit, the parties arrived at the settlement and in terms of settlement, decree was passed on November 26, 1987 and six years ti...
Chunni Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1046; 1994(1)WLN541
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-4-1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC.2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the First Information Report, is that on 8-11-1988, Chunni Lal S/o Shri Roopa Meena came to the house of Ramji. At that time Ramji was not at his house but his son Shanker was present in the house. Chunni Lal asked Shanker that he did not care for Ramji. After saying so, Chunni Lal left the house. Sometime thereafter Ramji came and Shanker informed him regarding the arrival of Chunni Lal and let him known what Chunni Lal uttered. Ramji, on hearing this, went to enquire from Chunni Lal. While Ramji was returning from the house of Chunni Lal, accused Chunni lal and Nathu Lal, armed with Lathis, followed him and inflicted injuries with Lathis to Ramji in the field of one Shanker ...
Keshar Singh Vs. Abbas Ali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj101
R. Balia, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 5-1-1993 by which the petitioner's evidence was closed.2. By order dated 18-11-1989 the summoning of witnesses of defendants was closed and the defendant was required to bring his own witnesses. On 13-10-1992 defence witness Khem Raj was examined on behalf of the petitioner-defendant No, 5. One, Deepchand Mathur was present as witness of defendant No. 3. The trial Court refused to record his statement on the ground that the name of Deepchand was not in the list of witnesses and that on behalf of defendant No. 3, the witnesses of plaintiff have not been cross-examined. Therefore, he can only produce rebuttal evidence and cannot produce his own evidence and the matter was adjourned on 5-1-1993 for bringing any of the witness whose names have been mentioned in the list. On 5-1-1993, no witness of defendant No. 5 was present. However, he moved an application on 5-1-1993 itself that in the list of witnesses, name of Balkrishna...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Engineering Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Raj)433; [1995]215ITR527(Raj)
1. These references have been made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, for deciding the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to grant interest under Section 214 in respect of amount of tax refunded to the assessee?'The relevant assessment years are 1980-81 and 1981-82. The assessee, a registered firm, carried on the business of building construction for Military Engineering Services (in short, 'MES'). The deductions were effected by the Military Engineering Services for tax from the amounts payable to the assessee. Consequent upon the assessments, the assessee became entitled to refunds. The Income-tax Officer granted refunds, but did not allow interest under Section 214 of the Act. Appeals were preferred before the Appellate Assistant ...
Shankar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN357
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. These two writ petitions are directed against the order date, 18.1.94 issued by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Udaipurwati, district Jhunjhunu, where by the service of the petitioners have been terminated from the post of Teacher Gr.III. Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order because a common order is under challenge and writ petitions are founded on almost identical grounds.2. Petitioner, Shankar Lal passed M.Com. examination from the University of Rajasthan. He was appointed as Teacher Gr.III for a period of 30 days by an order issued on 18.2.86 by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchyat Samiti Udaipurwati. Term of his appointment was extended by another 30 days. This was followed by temporary appointment of the petitioner for a period of six months which according to the petitioner, was accorded to him after due selection. Term of temporary appointment of the petitioner was also extended till the end of academic session of 1987-88 or till t...
Pesticides India Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN238
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. The first writ petition has been filed challenging the vires of Section 3(4), Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') defining 'excisable article', Chapter IV-A, Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules) relating to the denatured spirituous preparations and notification dated August 20, 1979 (Annexure 5) adding therein 'Denatured Spirituous Preparations' in Rule 69B of the Rules and declaring that 'Malathion Technical', manufactured by the petitioner, is not an excisable article. The second writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated March 16, 1982 (Annexure 2) enhancing the permit fee leviable under Rule 69B of the Rules from 10 paisa to Re. 1/- per liter on denatured spirtituous preparations and for refunding amount of Rs. 1,53,000/- collected in excess as such.2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is as follows: It is a public limited company. It carries on business of manufacturing pesticides...
Shiv Charan Sharma and 5 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLC433; 1994(1)WLN594
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have questioned legality of the orders relating to promotions made on the post of Teacher Gr.II and the irreversion from the post of Teacher Gr.II to that of Teacher Gr.IlI. Since facts of the case are similar and common questions of law have been raised for determination, the only appropriate course for this Court is to decide all these writ petitions by a common order.2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners, I deem it proper to make reference to few facts from each of the writ petitions.3. In writ petition No. 222/94 Shiv Charan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. the petitioner has stated that he passed B.A. from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1978 and B.Ed. from University of Ajmer in the year 1988. He joined Government service as Teacher Gr.III on being appointed as such by the District Education Officer Jaipur I (Boys Institution), Jaipur. In the seniority list of Teacher Gr.III of dist...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »