Rajasthan Court April 1998 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.
Dhoori and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC200
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. It is well settled that in a case triable by Court of Sessions, a Magistrate cannot summon and commit a person, not named in the charge sheet, under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to stand trial along side the accused. Admittedly, after usual investigation the Police Station, Bissau submitted charge sheet against accused Suresh for committing offences under Sections 498A, 302 and 304B, IPC. The petitioners Dhoori, Ramavtar and Anchi were not named in the charge sheet. The ACJM, Jhunjhunu vide order dated 6th January, 1996 took cognizance against the accused Suresh as well as against the petitioners Dhoori, Ramavtar and Anchi under Sections 498A, 302, 304B and 34, IPC. The accused persons assailed the said order by preferring proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before this Court bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 96/1996. This Court disposed of the said petition vide order dated February 2, 1996 stating that the question as to whether prima facie case against the ...
Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ493
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred before this Court against the impugned order dated 5-9-1997 passed by learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) (Sessions Judge), Kota in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 114/1995 P.S. Udhyog Nagar, Kota in respect of offences punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'The Act of 1955') and for offences punishable under Sections 407 and 120B, IPC whereby the petitioner's application dated 25-3-1996 was dismissed.2. The questions of law which have arisen for determination of this Court in the context of the case as set up by the prosecution against the accused petitioner are formulated herein below :-(a) Whether the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) cases, Kota by the impugned order dated 5-9-1997 in a case arising out of FIR No. 114/1995 for offences punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Act of 1955 and Sections 407 and 120B, IPC was justified in dismissing the petitioner's app...
Paras Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC462; 1998(1)WLN188
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner, (1) regarding increments with effect from 1978, (2) fixation with effect from 1976 and, (3) salary paid from 1st December 1976 to December 1981, do not survive any more. Hence, this Court has to decide the only question regarding the order of penalty Anx. P/5 and the appellate order Anx. P/7.2. This is a unique case of harassment to the employee. The petitioner, who was Assistant Inspector, was served with a show cause notice to show cause as to why he may not be dismissed from service on the ground of remaining absent by producing false Medical Certificates. He was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the Enquiry Officer, therefore, denovo enquiry was ordered. Inspite of that, the Enquiry Report submitted by he Enquiry Officer Once again exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. once again the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the finding of the Enqui...
Ramu Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN480
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuing directions to the respondents to grant semi-permanent status and regular pay scale to them on the post of Beldar from the dates of their initial appointment and in the alternative to grant them semi-permanent status after completing two years service from their initial appointment.2. As per the factal-averments made in this petition, the petitioners were appointed as Beldars in 1988 and onwards and their services are governed by the Rajasthan (Public Works Department (B & R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments) Work-charge Employee Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules, 1964'). During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents had granted the semi-permanent status and the reliefs which are available to the semi-permanent employees as is evident from the orders dated 24.8.1995 (Annexure. Rule 1) and 16.9.1995 (Annexure. Rule 2) to the reply. The g...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kera and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC280; 1998(1)WLN608
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. In these petitions common question of law has arisen for decision. It is, therefore, proper that they should be disposed of by a common order.2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the petitioners.3. These petitions have been filed against the following orders passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara.(1) Order dated 9.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 52/1994.(2) Order dated 23.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 48/1994.(3) Order dated 23.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 11/1994.(4) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 75/1994.(5) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 95/1994.(6) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 56/1994.(7) Order dated 22.12.1994 passed in Criminal Case No. 52/1994.(8) Order dated 23.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 49/1994.(9) Order dated 23.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 44/1994. By the above mentioned orders, the learned Civil Judge (...
Ganpati Khanij Udhyog Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj217
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashment of the orders dated 21-9-93 (Annx. 6) and dated 23-2-1991 (Annx. 3) and Notice dated. 24-11-93 (Annx. 7). A direction has been sought that the petitioner is not liable to pay the dead rent for the period during which the possession of the area remained with the State Gpvt. i.e. from 28-3-1985 to 27-10-1991.2. The petitioner's case is that it was holding mining lease for mining Mica, Feldsar and Quartz near village Thumi Tonk, Tehsil Beawar, Distt. Ajmer for 20 years from 28-9-79 and that a notice dated 1-2-1984 was given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 to produce the record for the period from 28-9-1982 to 27-9-1983 and thereafter the State Govt., due to the non-compliance of the said notice, cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner vide order dated 10-1-1985 with forfeiture of security. The petitioner challenged this order by preferring revision petit...
Pani Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR798(Raj)
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring the petitioner to get his accounts audited from a certified auditor mentioned in the order.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power to get accounts audited under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked in cases where the accounts of the assessee are already audited by reason of the provisions of Section 44AE. The submission is that by a subsequent statutory amendment, it has been considered that in all cases of assessment involving a particular sum of money and above, there will be a complexity of accounts and, therefore, audit of those accounts is made compulsory. The Legislature has by necessary implication curtailed the powers under Section 142(2A) requiring audit being' done by a certified auditor under that provision. According' to learned counsel, power to get accounts audited under Section 142(2A) cannot b...
Rahul Alias Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3664; 1999(1)WLC55; 1998(1)WLN662
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of 1973') raises an important question of law as regards the scope and extent of the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of 1973.2. Brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition, as slated by the accused petitioner, are that on a challan having been filed against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'the NDPS Act') trial was conducted. The prosecution closed its evidence on 19th Dec. 1996 and after recording the statement of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the case was fixed for final hearing. When the case was being heard on 3-1-1997, during the course of arguments, it was considered by the prosecution that where the sample remained from 1 -5-1995 to 5-5-1995, has not been proved. After about 2'/2 months and by seeking three a...
Leeladhar Biyani and Sons Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer,
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: (2001)124STC294Tribunal
1. Both these applications filed under Section 8(1) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995, and directed against the provisional assessment orders dated February 1, 1996 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 passed under sections 7B, 16(1)(i), 11-B(f) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act") arise in the facts and circumstances to be stated as hereunder.2. Since both these applications involve the common questions of law and fact they are being disposed of by a common judgment.3. For the sake of convenience we take up for consideration the application No. 44 of 1996 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95.It has been alleged that the applicant-firm carries on its business of refining kalmi shora at Hanumangarh. It refines this kalmi shora into a substance called salt peter and thereafter sells it off. One of its partners by name Shri Kamal Prakash Biyani obtained from the Mining Department a mining licence on February 28, 1985 for extracting from the ...
Shravan Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC690; 1998(1)WLN203
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner was superannuated, and his pension was also fixed and paid. However, lateron the Department felt that the pension was wrongly fixed, therefore, it started to deduct the excess amount paid to the petitioner by way of pension. Not only that, they recovered from the gratuity also and not paid any amount of gratuity to the petitioner. The amount which was earned by the petitioner by way of gratuity cannot be recovered for the dues or the amount over-paid to the petitioner even it was paid by mistake.2. Mr. Tatia, learned Counsel for the respondent Department, on the basis of Rule 295(4)(a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short the Rules) submitted that the Government dues, outstanding against a Government servant at the time of retirement or found to be outstanding subsequent to the issue of final pension, may be recovered by the Government from the amount of pension/gratuity or both payable or paid to the Government servant or members of his fam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »