Rajasthan Court January 1996 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.
Kishan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC118; 1996(1)WLN49
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned suspension order dated 15.1.1996 (Annx. P/2) on the ground, inter alia, that since no disciplinary enquiry is pending against him, therefore, he cannot be suspended.2. The aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is misplaced within the meaning of Paragraph 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 read with Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, which clearly provides that a delinquent employee can be placed under suspension even if a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated. Pendency of disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent officer is not a condition precedent to place him under suspension.3. It is true that the services of the petitioner, who is working as a patwari, are governed by Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules of 1957') but the amending the said ...
Narendra Dev Vs. the Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC121; 1996(1)WLN42
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Instructor in G.D. Somani, Poly technique, Molasar (District Nagaur) as a Motor Mechanic in the pay-scale of Rs. 355-570 on three months probation as per order dated 05.11.79 by the second respondent. On completion of probation period the petitioner was confirmed on that post. It is the case of the petitioner that on 15.08.82 he applied for leave to go to Jodhpur for some urgent personal work, where he suddenly fell ill and he sent application from time to time for extension of leave. Later on, on 25.09.82 on recovery he joined duties and submitted the certificate of the Doctor for his illness. Thereafter, the petitioner worked from 25.09.82 to 28.09.82 and took half-day's leave on 28.09.82 and two day's further leave and went to Jodhpur where he again fell ill and applied for extension of leave alongwith medical-certificates. In spite of this the petitioner was served with a notice dated 13.10.82 and thereafter his service were termi...
ishwar Textile Vs. Jaipur Golden and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC80; 1996(1)WLN46
P.K. Palli, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff/petitioner to be presented to the court of competent jurisdiction.2. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of money against the respondent-defendants saying that the goods delivered to respondent No. 1 to be sent to respondent No. 2 did not reach the proper destination and thus the plaintiff was entitled to the cost of the material along with the interest. The defendants in the written statement took up the objection of territorial jurisdiction and issue No. 5 was framed to that effect and was treated as preliminary issue and decided as such.3. The learned counsel appealing for the petitioner contends that the learned court has committed an error in passing the impugned order as the said order would be deemed to have been passed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am not prepared to accept this...
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division and anr. Vs. Anop Kanwar (Smt. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1120Raj
B.R. Arora, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 22, 1995, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants and maintained the order dated March 2, 1995 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Banswara, by which the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 67,780/- as compensation, imposed the penalty of Rs. 5000/- and awarded the cost of Rs. 100/- alongwith interest @ 6% per anum on the amount of compensation with effect from September 6, 1989.2. Ratan Singh s/o Shri Gulab Singh-an employee in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Banswara, on September 6, 1991 died at Himmata Ki Ghati by electrocution as he was, at that time, working as Pump Driver on the Lift Canal. Smt. Anop Kanwar (mother of the deceased), Chandraveer Singh (son of the deceased) and Smt. Gaind Kanwar (widow of the deceased) filed the claim petition for the a...
Smt. Bhagwanidevi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN56
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.2. The application is opposed apart from the Public Prosecutor, also by Shri Mridual Jain, appearing on behalf of the complainant, who is brother of the deceased-wife.3. The deceased Santosh was married on 3.12.92 to one Subhash. This Smt. Santosh was reported dead on 23.10.94. It was communicated to her relations that she has met accidental death by falling into the well. One, Satish, her real brother informed the police that the death is not natural and investigation should take place. Accordingly, the police investigated into the allegations and during the course of investigation recorded statements of several persons, Post Mortem was conducted and F.S.L. report was obtained. On consideration of the entire investigation papers, the police came to a conclusion that offence Under Section 306 of IPC is made out only against one accused Ram Prashad. A challan, therefore, was filed against that ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banswara Textiles Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Raj)408; [1999]235ITR743(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Revenue, by this application moved under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with respect to the assessment year 1984-85 of the assessee, has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to state the case and refer the following two questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Central Government subsidy is not deductible from the money or book cost to the asses-see of its plant, machinery and building, while computing the actual cost thereof under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purposes of allowing depreciation, etc./investment allowance, etc. ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustaining addition of rupees one lakh only out of total addition of Rs. 20,53,037 re...
Ashok Kumar Joshi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC140; 1996(1)WLN52
N.K. Jain, J.1. This review petition is filed in view of the order of the Supreme Court dt. 7.4.1994 against the judgment of this Court dt. 28.9.1993 whereby the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld.2. In pursuance of the show cause notice issued by this Court, Mr. M.R. Singhvi filed reply on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1,2, & 4 and Mr. Jangir has filed reply on behalf of the Respondent No. 3.3. The non-petitioners raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the review petition. It has been stated that in the grab of this review petition, the Advocate on record has made some new persons Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 as party who were not party in the original writ petition and by this attempt the petitioners practised fraud upon the Court as they were never party in the original writ petition Nos. 4426/93, DBC Special Appeal Nos. 600/93 and not before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. It has also been stated that the petitioners have tried to en...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bela Marya and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ304; AIR1996Raj126; 1996(1)WLN152
Arun Madan, J.1. The appellant-InsuranceCompany has preferred this appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), againstthe Award, dated 29th January, 1994, passedby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behrodin Civil Miscellaneous (MAC) Case No. 130/92 (34/90) whereby an Award of Rupees5,96,000/- was passed in favour of claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Aggrieved by the saidAward the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that on 30th September, 1989 at about 7.00 p.m. late Pareesh Marya was driving his Maruti Van bearing Registration No. DAJ 3013 on Behrod-Sahjahanpur road. A Truck bearing Registration No. DIG 3144 was parked in a stationary position on the national highway near Behrod 1 km. ahead of Neemrana turn. Instead of parking the truck on the footpath its driver had parked the same on the road. Since the parking lights of the truck were not on at that time and also on account of darkness the...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Vidhyadhar Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR192(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in remanding the case to the Wealth-tax Officer for valuation of the property as per Schedule III whereas such Schedule is effective from April 1, 1989, so applicable for the assessment year 1989-90 and onwards ?'2. The controversy and the dispute in this petition relates to the valuation of the share of the assessee in an immovable property, namely, 'Jindal General Manufacturing Company, Delhi' which is situated at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. The assessee was assessed for his share in this property at Rs. 16,19,000 in each year of assessment by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the report of the District Valuation Officer...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Bhanwar Lal Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR650(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in remanding the case to the Wealth-tax Officer for valuation of property as per Schedule III whereas such Schedule is effective from April 1, 1989, so applicable for the assessment year 1989-90 and onwards ?'2. The controversy and the dispute in this petition relates to the valuation of the share of the assessee in an immovable property, namely, 'Jindal General Manufacturing Company, Delhi' which is situated at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. The assessee was assessed for his share in this property at Rs. 16,19,000 in each year of assessment by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the report of the approved valuer. The Di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »