Rajasthan Court May 1995 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.
Santokh Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC292
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota in Criminal Case No. 764/94, State v. Gurupal Singh and Ors.2. The circumstances leading to the present petition may be narrated in brief as under :The wife Smt. Gurjeet Kaur filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate (North) Kota under Sections 420, 406 and 498A I.P.C. against her husband Gurupal Singh and her father-in-law and mother-in-law. From the averments of the complaint it transpires that Smt. Gurjeet Kaur was married to the petitioner Gurupal Singh on September, 21 1991 in accordance with their religious rites and eremonies, but their marriage did not prove successful. According to her, she was subjected to cruelty and no love and affection was given to her by her husband. According to her, the articles and ornaments, which are 'Stridhan' ...
Mohammed Ismail Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN491
Arun Madan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the above named petitioner in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of alleged violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 300A and 311 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The petitioner who is a project based employee of the respondent and was appointed as daily wager in the office of Tehsildar, Sikar (respondent No. 3) vide order, dated 3.10.1987, has filed this writ petition claiming the right of continuity in service on the ground that he has completed more than 240 days of service and since the office of Tehsildar is an industry within the ambit of Sections 2J and 25 respectively of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'), and as such the petitioner could not be retrenched from service as the same has resulted in deprivation of his right to live and liberty.3. The facts giving rise to the fili...
Kanwar Lal Vs. Addl. Commissioner Commercial Taxes and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN321
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a relief to quash the impugned order of Additional Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Jaipur (respondent No. 1) dated 3.12.1983 Annex. 6 to the writ petition and for restoring the order dated 24.7.1980 Annex. 2 to the writ petition passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (respondent No. 2) on the ground, inter alia, that respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to set aside the orders of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali (respondent No. 3) dated 13.7.1979 Annx. 1 to the writ petition by substituting his own order enhancing the tax liability. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer. Pali has attained finality subject to the modification of order dated 24.7.1980 Annx. 2 to the writ petition passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction conferred upon him Under Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the Rajasthan Entertainments...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Shri Ram Yadav
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC16; 1995(2)WLN184
ORDERPursuant to Regional Office Order No. 374 dated March 30, 1978 Conductor Shri Ram son of Phoola Ram of Jalore Depot was served with charge sheet and the Depot Manager (Region), Jodhpur was appointed as enquiry officer.The enquiry report and other relevant record pertaining to the charges and the Statements of rival parties forwarded by the enquiry officer have been carefully considered. The enquiry officer has in his report held that Conductor Shri Ram was guilty of the charges and I concur with the same.Therefore, I Regional Manager Jodhpur hold Shri Ram son of Phoola Ram Conductor Jalore Depot guilty of the aforesaid charges and remove him form service as per provisions of Rule 36(7) of the Standing Orders and forfeit the wages for the period of suspension as per the provisions of Rule 36(5) of the Standing Orders.sd/-Regional ManagerMere reading of the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner workman makes it clear that no where the competent authority has mentioned 'good and...
Gopal Mathur Son of Heera Lal Mathur Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN682
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This is a very hard case of a blind but self sufficient man - the petitioner herein, who was appointed against handicapped quota, on the post of Music Teacher and is presently serving at Government Primary School, Karauli, Sawai Madhopur. He has filed this, writ petition on the ground that he is being denied the regular scale of pay of Teacher Gr. III ever since his appointment on 21.1.80.2. The petitioner had passed the Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer in the year 1980 and thereafter he took Diploma course in Music from the Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad. He was thereafter appointed as a Music Teacher in the Government Primary School, Kota by order dated 28.1.80 in the scale of 3rd Grade 355-570 and his services were extended from time to time, ultimately upto 30.4.80 or until further orders vide order No. 5361 dated 11.7.1980. The petitioner Joined the post on 31.9.80 and has been continuously working since t...
Modi Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR50(Raj)
1. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the amended provision of Section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has been brought into force by the Finance Act, 1992, with effect from June 1, 1992. The aforesaid provision deals with payment of court fee in respect of the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The fee prescribed is Rs. 250 in cases where the income assessed is Rs. 1 lakh or less. The cases in which the total income of the assessee computed is more than Rs. 1 lakh and such assessment is challenged by way of appeal, the fee is Rs. 1,500.2. The petitioner contends that before 1970, when the provision was inserted, the basis for levy of fees for filing appeal was initiation of the proceedings. Now, the basis is changed. It is submitted that the provision is arbitrary and the fee prescribed is excessive.3. It is open to the Legislature to choose any relevant basis. The only condition is that the criteria or basis adopted should have some n...
Arvind Malot Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC370; 1995(2)WLN376
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Mr. Trivedi submits that despite frantic search made by the petitioner, accused R. Mohanraj and P. Swami could not be traced.2. Heard, Perused the orders passed by the learned lower courts. The petitioner stood surety for accused R. Mohanraj and P. Swami and executed surety bond of Rs. twenty thousand in respect of each accused. The said accused persons were facing trial for the offence under Section. 3/4, Prize. Chieats and Money Circulation Scheme Act, 1978, in the court of learned CJM, Banswara and they absented themselves on 15.10.93. Hence the surety bonds executed by the petitioner as also the personal bonds of the accused persons were forfeited and notice under Section 446 Cr. P.C. was issued against the pettioner.3. Petitioner, despite ample opportunity, failed to produce those accused persons nor he disclosed sufficient reasons for not producing them. The petitiner only argued that the being a second grade teacher, a sympathetic view should be taken and f...
AllauddIn Khilji Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1995
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC206; 1995(1)WLN701
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. This writ petition Is directed against the notice dated 17.05.91 (Annex-5) issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner to show causes to why the he should not be dismissed from service for not having requisite educational qualifications for MER Gp in the Army. The next of the show-cause noitice reads as under:1. It has been reported by sings Records vide their letter No. 15355406/D-1/T-9/56 dt 30 Jan 91 that your enrolment in the Army for MER is irreqular since West Bengal Madrasa Eudcation Borad is not recognised by the competent auto. In terms of Section 20(3) of Army Act 1950 read with Army Rule 17, you are liable to be dismissed from service.2. In persuance of the above, you are hereby called upon to 'show caused, within 30 days of the receipt of this notice as to why you should not be dismissed from the service for not having requisite educational qualifications for MER Gp in the Army.3. In case your reply is not read within the stipulated period, it will be p...
Herdilia Unimers Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1995
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas841(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the CriminalProcedure Code has been submitted to quash the proceedings of CriminalCase No. 164 of 1994--Renu Jain v. Herdilia Unimers pending before theSpecial Court of Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur,and to discharge the accused petitioners.2. The brief facts of the case are that Mrs. Renu Jain had applied for allotment of 100 shares of the petitioner-company on the basis of its prospectus dated April 30, 1992, vide Application Nos. 2533789, dated June 1. 1992 The cheque was also given along with the application form for the requisite amount and the same was encashed on or about June 18, 1992. The complainant came to know of the allotment through her broker, Shri S. C. Jain, who received the brokerage amount in respect of the application made by the complainant. The shares were required to be sent by the petitioner-company on or before November 1, 1992, but the shares were not sent. According to the condi...
Banke Bihari Lal Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1995
Reported in: [1997]226ITR498(Raj); 1995(3)WLC759; 1995(2)WLN560
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The only dispute in the present writ petition is with regard to the seizure of 23 books of account by the authorised officer of the Income-tax Department on September 20, 1989. A panchnama (annexure 'A-1') was prepared and signed by the authorised officer, the witnesses and the petitioner. 2. According to the list of inventory of account books attached with the panchnama against the description of the account books seized, the period to which they pertain has been written in most of the cases and in few cases it is not mentioned as to which period they pertain to. The period mentioned started from April 1, 1981, and the said books are up to December 31, 1986. The books are as bulky as containing 193 pages (nakkalbai) and as thin as containing 9 pages of (hathbali). 3. The facts of the case are that the residential premises of the petitioner were searched on September 14, 1989, and the list of books was prepared. The said books were left in the premises searched and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »