Rajasthan Court March 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.
Rajesh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC582; 1996(2)WLN92
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated December, 19, 1994 whereby the petitioner stands charged with the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and under Sections 63, 64 & 68A of the Copy Right Act, 1957.2. The relevant facts are that on June 22, 1994 at about 2.15 P.M. when Shri Prahlad Singh SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and his party happened to reach near the Law College Premises they noticed the petitioner going on the road with a V.I.P. suite-case. They checked the petitioner and on a search of his suit-case discovered 36 Video Cassets therefrom. None of the Cinematograph films in those Video Cassets was certified for exhibition by the Board of Film Certification (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). While 34 cassets contained cinematograph film of various feature films, dramatic performances etc., two of them did not contain any visual images. Being of the opinion that the 34 uncerti...
J.K. Goyal Vs. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1075Raj; 1996(2)WLC396
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order terminating his service and the Validity of condition No. 16 contained in the appointment letter dated, October 15, 1984, which is stated by the respondent company (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Management') to be the contract of employment.The vital question for consideration in this petition, therefore, is --Whether condition No. 16 of the letter of appointment dated, October 15, 1984, empowering the management to terminate services of an employee without assigning any reason by mere giving one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice, is arbitrary, unreasonable and constitutionally invalid?2. The necessary facts of the case for decision of the writ petition are in a narrow compass. The petitioner joined service of the respondent M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. as Clerk in the year 1963, since then, except for a short break of few days, he contin...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Mangi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC268; 1996(1)WLN84
B.R. Arora, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.2.95 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by petitioner Mangi Lal and directed the appellants to fix Mangi Lal on the pay of Rs. 54O/- from 16.2.84 and give him all the necessary benefits which he is entitled to get. The appellants were further directed to pay the arrears of salary to petitioner Mangi Lal within three months from the date of the judgment.2. Respondent Mangi Lal's father late (Shri) Jetha Ram died on 20.9.77 while he was working as the Pump Driver in the Public Health and Engineering Department, Bikaner. -Respondent Mangi Lal, under the provisions of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of the Dependants of Government Servant Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (For Short, 'the Rules, 1975'), on compassionate ground, was given appointment as Store Munshi on work charge basis vide order dated 7.10.78. On 25.6.81 he was granted semi-permanen...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Prakash Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC585; 1996(1)WLN212
B.R. Arora, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 31.7.95 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent-petitioners, set-aside the orders of termination of their services and directed the appellants to allow the respondents to continue in service as they were appointed after due selection under the Rules.2. The respondents' (petitioners in the writ petitions) case as set-up in the writ petitions, is that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 5.7.93 issued by the District Education Officer, Rajasamand, they applied for the post of Lab. Boys/Class IV Servant in various schools in Rajsamand District. They were called for interview. The interviews were held on 9.9.93 . They were selected and were given appointments as Lab. Boys in the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025/- by the appointment orders issued on 10.9.93, 11.9.93, 13.9.93, 14.10.93, 21.11.93 and 26.11.93. They were appointed on temporary basis ...
Sudarshan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC428; 1996(1)WLN607
N.K. Jain, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate w.e.f. the date persons ranking below in the merit list of selected candidates forwarded by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission were appointed and he be assigned due seniority.2. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are that in pursuance of the advertisement for selection to the Rajasthan Judicial Service issued on 17.5.1992 by the respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner applied for recruitment to Rajasthan Judicial Service. The petitioner appeared in the written examination, result of the examination was published in the Rajasthan Patrika on 4.12.1992 and he was declared successful. The petitioner was intimated vide letter dated 23.12.1992 that his candidature has been cancelled since he...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Raj)51
V. K. SINGHAL, J. :In respect of asst. yr. 1967-68 the claim of extra shift allowance equal to normal depreciation has been made by the assessee. The Tribunal vide its order dt. 8th Sept., 1982 referred the following question of law arising out of its order dt. 31st Oct., 1980 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that extra shift allowance equal to normal depreciation should be allowed for the full year in respect of the assets which were used during the year for more than 30 days but less than 180 days ?'2. Vide letter dt. 29th Nov., 1971 the revised claim for extra shift allowance was made on the basis of Expln. (1) to the remarks appearing in remarks column against Heading III, machinery and plants in para 1 of Appendix I of the IT Rules, 1962. It was claimed by the assessee that in this Explanation the extra shift allowance equal to normal shift depreciation will be an allowance that should be given in r. 5 of the IT Ru...
Zaffar HussaIn and ors. Vs. Gurcharan Lal Bhatia and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC108; 1996(1)WLN408
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. The tenant-defendant-appellants have moved the present application under Section 151, C.P.C. for stay of execution of the decree affirmed by this Court on 25.3.1996 in Second Appeal on the ground that the tenant-appellants Intend to prefer S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court within a shortest possible time for which at least 60 days' time would be required to file the said appeal.3. In fact, the aforesaid application moved under Section 151, CPC is misconceived, Inasmuch as, there are clear provisions under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1950'), which clearly provides that where any decree for eviction of a tenant Is made on the ground specified In Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act, the landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiry of two months from the date of such decree. In view of the aforesaid mandatory pro...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Iqbal Singh and 3 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC255; 1996(1)WLN189
B.R. Arora, J.1. These four appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31-1-95 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the four writ petitions filed by the respondent petitioners -and quashed and set-aside the orders of punishment passed by the appellant Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board') against the respondent-petitioners. The learned Single Judge further directed the appellant R.S.E.B. to reinstate the respondent-petitioner Iqbal Singh with all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge, while setting-aside the orders of punishment imposed upon the three. Assistant Engineers (respondent-petitioners) regarding disentitlement of promotion for three years, also, directed the Board to provide them all consequential benefits such as proper fitment in the pay scale of the post on which they were working.2. Respondent Iqbal Singh was working as the Executive Engineer (O&M;), R.S.E.B., Hanumangarh, at the relevant time ...
Dr. D.C. Dudi and ors. Vs. University of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC189; 1996(1)WLN638
Gyam Sudha Misra, J.1. The plea of equal pay for equal work which has often been raised before the different judicial forums and authoritative pronouncements are already galore on this question, has once again been raised in this special appeal by the appellants herein, who have been teaching in graduate and post-graduate classes in different subjects in the University of Rajasthan and are being paid only an honorarium at Rs.75/- per period. Although, according to their case, their appointments have all the trappings of appointment as Lecturer on substantive or ad hoc basis, still they have been facing discrimination on the count of payment of salary /remuneration. This had been the common cause of all these petitioners which prompted them to file a writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 1177/1995, which had been placed before a learned Single Judge of this Court, who by order dated 8.3.1995 was pleased to dismiss the same holding therein that the appointment of the petitioners had been on pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›