Rajasthan Court March 1995 Judgments
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs. R.T.A., Bikaner ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj11; 1995(2)WLC690; 1995(1)WLN471
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dt/- 25-11-1993 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner granting one non-temporary stage carriage permit each in favour of the respondents No. 2 and 3 on the Sangaria-Delhi inter-State route, so also the order of the same date in opening the said inter-State route may kindly be quashed and set aside.2. In brief the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner-R.S.R.T.C. are that petitioner-Corporation has been established and constituted in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of providing road and transport service. It is alleged that under the reciprocal transport agreement arrived at in between the State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana, the petitioner is providing transport services on the Ganganagar-Delhi via Hanumangarh, Sangaria, Dabwali, Hisar etc. It is alleged that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and one Jagdish Singh submitted applications before the respondent No. 1 on 7-10-199...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Rameshwari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ1143; AIR1996Raj105; 1995(2)WLC403; 1995(1)WLN627
R.S. Kejriwal, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been directed against the Award, dated 17-1-1994, passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bharatpur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 180/91, awarding Rs. 4,80,000/- to the claimants on account of loss of dependency; Rs. 40,000/- on account of deprivation of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/ - on account of physical and mental agony. The Tribunal found that the deceased Vijay Singh, at the time of accident was 22 years of age. He was doing business of selling milk and also cultivation. According to the statement of A.W. 1 Rameshwari, widow of deceased and A.W. 2 Khillo, mother of the deceased, the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- p.m. Deceased used to spend 1/4 amount of his income on himself and 3/4th income on his family. The learned Judge determined the amount of dependency at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per year and after applying m...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC418; 1995(2)WLN98
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard. Perused the case diary.2. It is alleged that on 4.3.95, the S.H.O., Police Station, Jhadol alongwith Tehsildar, Executive Magistrate, Jhadol, motbirs and others conducted the search of the house of the petitioner on a source information to the effect that the petitioner is indulged in purchasing and selling of Ganja and Bhang. On search of his house, 325 gms. Ganja and 200 gms. of Bhang were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and, as such, a case under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act was registered. The petitioner did not possess any licence for possession of the said Ganja. The petitioner in his interrogation to the I.O. informed that he had fallen into bad society and that he has become addicted to take Ganja and said Ganja was for his personal consumption and not for sale. The I.O. has not collected any evidence to show that the petitioner is indulged in purchasing and selling of Ganja. Under Section 27 of the Act, such an offence is punishable...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswant Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN569
P.P. Naoleker, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking relief that the provisional seniority-list of Inspectors of the Transport Department, Rajasthan deated 23.02.91 (Annex.-12) and the final seniority-list dated 16.08.91 (Annex.- 14) be declared illegal; and, for assigning seniority to the petitioners as per Rule 15(1), Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorptipn of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules of 1969') from the date of their appointment on the posts of Blaster or, in the alternative, for directions that the petitioners stood absorbed on the posts of Inspectors with effect from 30.11.78 i.e., the date of their first absorption in the Transport Department.2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the -facts summarised are that petitoner No. 1 Jaswant Singh was initially appointed on the post of Blaster on 08.02.68 and petitioner No. 2 Gopal Singh was similarly appointed on 08.09.69 in the Ground Water Deapartment. These...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Son of Rikhab Chand JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN542
Mrs. Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ order or direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner promoted on the post of Junior Accountant since 1975 or since 4th July, 1975, the date from which the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted to the said post. The petitioner has claimed further promotion to the post of Accountant since 1979 and as Accounts Officer since 1988 to keep him at par with his juniors who have been so promoted. He has accordingly claimed all consequential benefits for the aforesaid posts.2. The material facts of the case are that the petitioner had been appointed as Accounts Clerk with effect from 22.11.1958, after passing the examination of Accounts Clerk. Thereafter, it appears that the Accounts Service in the State of Rajasthan came to be reconstituted in the year 1975, wherein it was decided to absorb all the Accounts Clerks to the post of Junior Accountant along with those persons wh...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Teeju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN614
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan and also perused the documents on record.2. The petitioner is a women and she has given birth to a child on 2nd February, 1995. It is also contended that two persons have been assigned one injury on the head of Nauranglal.For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the potitioner Under Section 438 Cr.PC.3. Taking into consideration all the facts & circumstances of the case, I think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Under Section 438 Cr.PC.4. The SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, Police Station Laxmangarh in FIR No. 49/95 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Mst. Teeju Devi W/o Chaina Ram she shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) with one surety in the like amount sum of Rs..../ each, t...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN537
R.P. Saxena, J.1. This jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.3.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence under sections 363 and 376 IPC and sentenced him under each count for 7 years rigorous imprisonment an a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further undergo imprisonment for the month.2. Briefly the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 22.12.1987, prosecutrix Usha (P.W. 7) aged about 14 years alongwith her cousin sister Kamla (P.W. 3) and brother Bhuriya (P.W. 6) had gone to collect wood in the jungle near village Gadiya. At about 12.00 noon, co-accused Chuniya, who is eldest brother of the prosecutrix, alongwith appellant Ganesh came there. It is alleged that Chuniya and appellant caught hold the hands of the prosecutrix and took her away. Kamla and Bhuriya rushed to their house and informed the matter to P.W. 2- Bhura, who alongwith Bhagga went to the jungle and saw Chuniya and app...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Achaldas Dhanraj and Sanklecha Brothers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Raj)325; [1996]217ITR799(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. Both the matters are disposed of by this single order since the question of law involved is common.2. In D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 9 of 1992, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in granting the benefits of amendment to Section 43B which was applicable with effect from the assessment year 1988-89 to the assessee in an appeal for an earlier year, thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 30,112 made under Section 43B ?'3. In D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 26 of 1992, the following two questions have been referred :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of Rs. 92,122 being the unpaid sales tax on November 4, 1983, i.e., the last date of ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar Bhambani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ442Raj; 1995(3)WLC751; 1995(1)WLN605
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the documents placed on the record.2. This case pertains to a dispute of the workman, who was initially appointed on the post of Carpenter with effect from December 26, 1985 by Installation Officer, Programme Production Centre, Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur (Respondent No. 3). The selection of the petitioner was against a vacancy which had arisen following the name of the petitioner being sponsored from the Employment Exchange, Jaipur. The contention of the petitioner is that notwithstanding that he was appointed as a daily-wager, he worked full-time at par with the regularly selected and permanent employees but his salary was not fixed in the regular pay-scale and instead the petitioner was paid Rs. 35/- per day only and there was violation of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It has further been conducted that the services of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from November 1, 1986 by an oral ord...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Zakir Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2837
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-8-86, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.2. Appellant Mohammad Zakir along with Chhotu alias Abdul Hamid, Amir Khan, Wazir Khan and Gaffar Mohammad, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, for the offence under Sections 302, 302/120B, 302/34 IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 26-5-83, at about 10.45 p.m. PW 1 Balu Ram and his brother Satya Narain were returning from their shop situated near a temple in village Asind. Balu Ram was pushing a hand-cart having three wheels and an empty drum was lying on the hand-cart. Satya Narain was carrying two kettles in his hands -- one of the kettles was containing milk-cream and the another was containing curd. After covering some distance from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »