Rajasthan Court November 1999 Judgments
Rajeev Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC63; 2000(2)WLN23
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. These four petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr. P.C.) by Rajiv Rathore, petitioner, seek the cancellation and quashing of the relevant First Information Reports registered at the same or different Police Stations of Jaipur City, against him and some others. As per desire and consent of the learned Counsel for the parties these were heard together and are now disposed of by this combined order. The main order shall be placed on the record of S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 602 of 1999 and a copy thereof on the records of each of the remaining petitions.2. The relevant facts, in chronological order in accordance with the sequence of events and the day, time and place of the registration of the various FIRs at the same and other police stations, are these:3. On April 22, 1999 at 2.05 p.m. one Nathu Ram reported to the Station House Officer (SHO) Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur that on 20.4.1999 two unknown persons had taken his bro...
Tag this Judgment!Mangu Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR742]; (2000)IIILLJ1293Raj; 2000WLC(Raj)UC354
J.C. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated November 26, 1995 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent No. 1 by which order the respondent No. 1 has declined to refer the matter of termination of services of the petitioner to the appropriate Labour Court for adjudication.2. The petitioner as stated in the writ petition is said to have been appointed on the post of Peon/Class IV employee on June 1, 1991 as daily wage worker. It is stated that even though the performance of the petitioner was satisfactory, but still his services were terminated on February 10, 1992 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner challenged the order of oral termination of service and he had also mentioned that after removing the petitioner, four persons namely Vijay Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Ghanshyam and Kailash were employed. Vide impugned order, the authorities had declined to refer the matter to the appropriate Court mainly on t...
Tag this Judgment!Sukha Ram Vs. Executive Engineer, I.G.N.P. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1473Raj
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated May 10, 1993 passed by the Labour Court whereby the reference made by the State Government has been answered in negative holding that the order of termination of the petitioner workman is not illegal.2. The necessary facts are that in the month of March, 1985. The petitioner was engaged on the daily wages basis @ Rs. 12 per day as 'Chowkidar'. His services were terminated on September 13, 1986. It was contended before the Labour Court that the termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as he was not being paid one month's compensation. On appreciation of material on record, the Labour Court found that the petitioner workman admitted that at the time of termination on September 13, 1986, he was paid compensation. In view of this, the Labour Court found no infirmity in the order of termination.3. It is contended by Mr. D.K. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Khenva Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN80
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh vide judgment dated 21.1.1998 while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for offence u/s 323 I.P.C. has granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellate court has also directed the petitioners Khenva Ram, Om Prakash and Jetha Ram to pay each of them Rs. 500/- to the victim.2. I do not find any infirmity in the order which call for interference by this Court as far as conviction of petitioners u/s. 323 I.P.C. and granting of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in the facts of the case the direction with respect to the payment of compensation by each of the accused is not proper in view of the relation between the parties. Consequently, the revision application is dismissed with the modification that order directing Khenva Ram, Om Prakash and Jetha Ram each of them to pay compensation of Rs. 500/- is quashed and set aside. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Murli Manohar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC661; 2000(2)WLN71
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioner is a member of Municipal Board, Mandalgarh District Bhilwara having been elected to the Office in the month of August, 1995. On 12.4.1999, the Department of Local Self Govt, Rajasthan issued notices to the petitioner and four other members of the Board calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be disqualified from the membership of the Board on the ground of remaining absent for three consecutive meetings of the Board. The petitioner filed reply to this notice and gave reasons for his absence. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 29.9.1999 the petitioner was suspended in exercise of powers under Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).2 The petitioner challenged the impugned order of his suspension on the ground of constitutional invalidity of Section 63(4) of the Act as well as on merits. Because the petitioner has sought relief of declaration of Section 63(4) of the Act to be ult...
Tag this Judgment!Miss. Veera Arora Vs. Life Insurance Corporation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC217; 2001ACJ2076; 2000(1)WLC651
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the claim arising as a consequence of accidental death of petitioner's father and make payment of the claim at the rate of double of the insured amount.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner's father Mahendra Nath Arora had been working with respondent No. 2-University and he was a member of Pension and Group Insurance Scheme of respondent No. 1 -- the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He died on 2-11-1990 at Ayodhya-Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh, on account of firing made by U.P. Police and other Forces deployed by the State to save the Babri Mosque. His family members has been paid the amount ofinsurance claim to the tune of Rs. 1,01,907/ - but petitioner's claim is that as per the Terms of the Policy, they were entitled to the sum double of the insured amount and as said amount has not been paid, they have approached this Court.3. Res...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Jora Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(NULL)80
ORDERB. M. Kothari, AM.The assessee has raised as many as eight grounds of appeal. However, all those grounds relate only to two additions sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The first addition confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) relates to estimation of assessee's income from profession of goldsmith at Rs. 33,000 as against the declared income of Rs. 10,000. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 relate to the aforesaid addition confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).3. Shri H. K. Ojha, the learned advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee. He submitted that a survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee dated 26-9-1988, which falls in the year under consideration. The assessee declared income from profession at Rs. 20,000 on estimated basis. The assessing officer estimated the same at Rs. 33,000 on the basis of statement given by the assessee during the course of survey under section 133A. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Gehlot Pan Bhandar Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)66TTJ(NULL)482
ORDERB.M. KOTHARI, AM.:This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dt. 17th Aug., 1992, passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1989-90.2. The assessee has raised as many as 7 grounds but all those grounds relate to two items of addition.3. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 relate to confirmation of addition made by the assessing officer in the declared trading results by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee is dealing in pan masala, toilet soap, tea, cigarettes and other commodities of daily use, A survey was conducted under section 133A on 3rd March, 1989. The assessing officer observed that during the course of survey cash was found short by sum of Rs. 22,756. Stock was also found short by an amount Rs. 4,983. It was further found during the course of survey that cash sales effected by the assessee were not being fully recorded in the books of account. It was found that cash memos were not issued on the date of survey in respect of cash sales aggregating to R...
Tag this Judgment!Director, Central State Farm Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR116]; (2000)IIILLJ1477Raj; 2000(2)WLC391
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated August 14, 1989 passed by the Labour Court in Reference Case No. 59/1986, by which an award has been in favour of respondent-workman and direction has been issued to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits i.e. back wages and continuity in service.2. The fact and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent-workman, who had been working with petitioner, was removed from service vide order dated March 20, 1985. On his application, reference under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') was made on July 24, 1986 as to whether the termination of services of respondent-workman vide order dated March 20, 1985, was in consonance with the provisions of the Act and if not, to what relief he was entitled for?3. The Award was made by the Labour Court on August 28, 1989 (Annexure 12) giving the respondent-workman all the reliefs, i....
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh and anr. Vs. Chandravir Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC277; 2000(2)WLN79
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the trial court refusing amendment. Amendment was sought for by the defendants in their written statement The only fact which they want to incorporate in the written statement pertained to a stand taken by the plaintiff in some other proceeding which came to the notice of the petitioners subsequently. The petitioners came to know this after filing of their written statement. The suit in question is suit for injunction and possession of a property regarding which, in the present suit, the plaintiff has alleged that it has come by inheritance but in another pleading, he has alleged that property has come by way of 'Bakhshishnama' and' he has acquired right over the property. The two stands taken in different proceedings are of different nature. Incorporation of these facts would be in the interest of justice. This will help in deciding the issue arising out in between the parties.2. The respondents have urge...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »