Rajasthan Court February 1995 Judgments
Vinod and ors. Vs. Distt. Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC247; 1995(2)WLN94
V.S. Kokje, J.1. With the consent of the parties, both these petitions were heard together finally.2. The petitioners were working as adhoc lower Division Clerks in the Subordinate Courts in District Pratapgarh. On 1.2.94, the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis for a period of one year Under Rule 23(3) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. In the appointment orders, it was stated that a test was taken to test efficiency in Hindi and English typing and the petitioners were found up to the mark. It was also stated in the appointment letter that the petitioners shall appear and clear the examination which may be taken for regular recruitment and shall also clear the typing test within one year, If they fail in the regular recruitment test, their services shall be liable to be terminated without notice. The District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 23.1.95 authorised the Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate I class, under him to ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwarlal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN640
P.K. Palli, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated Feb. 27,1987 whereby the removal of the petitioner by the Corporation was upheld and the relief for quashing the order Annex. 1 & 2 dated April 11.1983 and March 30,1982 respectively was refused but he was held entitled to subsistence allowance for the period he remained suspended from Nov. 5,1977 to March 30,1982, the date of the termination of his service vide Annex. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that the petitioner who was working as a U.D.C. in the office of Divisional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. was transferred to Banswara vide an order No. 730 dated 16.9.76, in pursuance of which he put his joining report in the office on the table of somebody in the office Divisional Officer, Banswara and left the head-Quarters without seeking any permission to leave the head-Quarter and did not join at Banswara till 4.11.1977 and therefore, he was suspended by the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sudha and anr. Vs. Manmohan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj59; 1995(3)WLC195; 1995(1)WLN281
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant revision petition has been posted for disposal of the stay application in the Daily Cause List although vide order dated 9-2-95, the office was directed to list this case today for hearing. However, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this revision petition is being heard and decided on merits at admission stage.2. The factual matrix of the case necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present revision petition, are that the respondents submitted an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on 28-3-89 as there was a clause in the partnership deed of the firm Agra Sweet Home, Sojatiya Gate, Jodhpur dated 3-9-80 by which a new firm under the name and style was constituted in place of the old firm which had previously been constituted vide partnership deed dated 1-4-77 stipulating that in case of a dispute in between the partners it shall be referred to arbitration. It is to be noticed that the matter was instituted...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Mohonot Vs. Thar Aanchalik GramIn Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC151; 1995(1)WLN279
P.P. Naolkekar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed in Thar Aanchalik Gramin Bank (for short 'the Bank') in the month of February, 1984, on the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier. Later on, the petitioner was confirmed on that post. The petitioner has a complaint that although his juniors have been promoted to the post of Field Supervisor in a promotion held in October, 1990, he was not given promotion. Admittedly, the petitioner is senior to some of the persons, who have been given promotion to the post of Field Supervisor.2. According to the respondent, the petitioner's case for promotion was not considered as per the Circular issued by the Bank on 2.6.90 where under the norms for consideration of merit and fitness are prescribed. It is laid down in para 5 of the Circular that persons who have been punished in a departmental enquiry, would not be taken into consideration for the purposes of promotion for three years from the date of imposition of the punishment. The petitioner was impose...
Tag this Judgment!Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Harnath Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2770; 1995(3)WLC271; 1995(1)WLN276
ORDERRajendra Sharma, J.1. Heard, Perused the record of the learned lower Court.2. Briefly the relevant facts are that in the night intervening 27th and 28th January, 1992, 19.360 kgms. of heroin (brown sugar) was recovered from vehicles No. RNR 8009 and No. GJ 6A 4571; that in those vehicles, accused-respondents Sadiq, Asif, Raghunath Meena, Agdar Shah, Kanhaiyalal Teli and Kanhaiyalal Anjana were travelling. Those accused persons did not have any licence to transport or possess the said contraband article and, as such, the officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau registered a case, arrested the accused persons and after conducting the investigation, submitted a criminal complaint on 23-4-92 against the respondents No. 1 to 9 for the offences under Sections 21, 23, 25, 27A, 29 and 30, N.D.P.S. Act in the Court of the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Udaipur. It is alleged that accused-petitioner No. 10, Gul Anwar Khan, was absconding and could not be apprehended. Investigat...
Tag this Judgment!Sawai Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC643; 1995(2)WLN204
V.K. Singhal, J.1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since the grievance raised in all these writ petitions is common. For the sake of convenience the facts of writ petition No. 4121/94 are taken into consideration.2. The various petitioners mentioned in this writ petition are serving on the post of Assistant Secretary in different Gram Panchayats at Panchayat Samiti Karauli, Hindaun and Nandoti District Sawai Madhopur since last number of years. Shri Prahlad Kumar Sharma is said to be serving since 1.6.1982 while others are serving since 1989, 1990 and 1992. Salary of Rs. 100/- is said to be paid except in the case of Hari Prasad Sharma to whom salary of Rs. 300/- has been shown as payable. The appointments of these persons were made by the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat and it is stated that necessary permission from the Panchayat Samiti as well as Zila Parishad was obtained.3. The Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Rules, 1959 has pres...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra NaraIn Goswami Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj233
Palli, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 26-10-1983 whereby a writ petition challenging the order of Khudkast Commissioner dated 25-3-1975 was dismissed. 2. One Kameshwar Goswami was treated as Jagirdar while 36 other persons were mentioned as co-sharers. Father of the appellant Jogeshwar was one of the co-sharers in the amount of compensation and rehabilitation grant payable from the resumption of jagir. 3. The co-sharers applied for allotmentof land as ex-Jagirdars under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act'). The Khudkast Commissioner treating these co-sharers as former Jagirdars allotted them land measuring one murabba each vide order dated 16-12-1965. A complaint appears to have been made that the allotment was secured on false representation and the Government vide the order dated 5-10-1968 directed the Khudkast Commissioner to look into the matter u...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. HussaIn Abdul HussaIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN544
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. The petitioners, who were Ex-Directors of Bhavnagar Vegetable Products Ltd. (in Short 'BVP Ltd.,'), have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings against them in Cr Complaint Case No. 132/1983 pending before the learned A.C.J.M. No. 2, Udaipur under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred-to as, 'the Act'.2. Briefly the relevant facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that on 30.7.73 the Food Inspector, Murad Khan, took a sample of vanaspati ghee from the retail shop of accused Laxmilal, now expired. The sample of vanaspati ghee was sent for chemical examination, which did not conform to the proscribed standard of ghee. The Municipal Council, Udaipur authorised the Food Inspector to file a complaint under the Act against fifteen accused persons including the present three petitioners and also accorded sanction to prosecute them. The Food Inspector filed a complaint on 9.11.73 in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj219; 1995(3)WLC52; 1995(1)WLN247
ORDER1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :--(i) Quash the impugned orders/letters of the respondent No. 2, Annexure 5, dt. 18-4-1994, 16-8-1994, Annexure 9 and Annexure 10, dt. 22-12-1994. (ii) Hold that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to attach/auction, sell or otherwise take over the possession of the industrial undertaking of the respondent No. 3, in violation of rights of the petitioner Corporation. (iii) Hold that the Section 11AAAA of the RST Act does not override statutory powers of the petitioner-Corporation, under Sections 29/30 of the Act. (iv) Restrain the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from auctioning the property, in question. (v) Set aside the sale or transfer, if any made by the respondent No. 2. (vi) Direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to deposit realization, if any, made by them by auction of property of the respondent No. 3 with the petitioner-Corporation. (vii) Permit the petitioner-Corporation to take over the assets of ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Uchhabkanwar and anr. Vs. Legal Representatives of Ramswaroop and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj209; 1996(1)WLC339
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.2. It is admitted by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 that the suit proceeded ex parte against the opposite party No. 3 -- Ram Singh. Therefore, Ram Singh is not require to be served. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant revision is heard and decided on merit at admission stage.3. The thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist before me is that the subordinate Court has no jurisdiction to refuse to summon the attendance of the witness by his order dated 16-1-1995, inasmuch as, he has ample jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure not only to issue a non-bailable warrant of his arrest but also to attach and sell his property and could have impose a fine on him, not exceeding Rs.500/-. According to learned cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »