Rajasthan Court November 2000 Judgments
Ramesh Chandra Vs. Kota Open University
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj394; 2001WLC(Raj)UC98
1. We have heard Mr, Dinesh Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated December 3, 1999, dismissing the writ petition.3. The petitioner was admitted to the course of Advance Diploma in Management,popularly known as ADIM by the respond-ent-Kota Open University, in the year 1992. As per the Scheme of the University, petitioner was eligible to appear in December, 1994 Examination, but he filled up his Examination Form for the examination of March, 1994. Apparently, as per Scheme itself, for six courses (subjects) for the Advanced Diploma in Management, a candidate is entitled to complete the same in one or more years, but not beyond four years. The petitioner submitted admission form in the month of November, 1992 and he was admitted in the course. The petitioner undertook all the subjects of the studies and also undertook inter...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC706; 2002(2)WLN282
Shethna, J.1. The appellant - original petitioner had filed writ petition No. 538/98 before this Court praying that the impugned orders dated 26.11.93 and 2.12.97 (Annex.7 and 8 respectively) giving instructions to give appointment to the petitioner only on class IV post as dependent of his father deceased Bhanwar Singh be quashed and the respondents be directed to appoint him on Class HI post of clerk/cashier with effect from 29.12.97, the date on which he was appointed on the post of Class IV.(2). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner holding that once the petitioner accepted the post of Class IV and resumed the duty with effect from 29.12.97, then he is not entitled for appointment to class III post of clerk/cashier. This has been challenged in the special appeal.(3). First of all, we make it clear that seeking appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right of anyone. The Authority is only required to consider the case for appointment a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Bhagwan Saraogi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC407
ORDERPalshikar, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 11.1.1999 passed by learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption, Kota whereby he declined to accept the final report submitted by the policy under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C.(2). The facts giving rise to the present petition are undisputed. First Information Report No. 45/96 was lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Jaipur against the accused persons complaining of commission of an offence by them punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with sec. 420 and 120B of IPC. After investigation the investigation Officer came to the conclusion that there is no proof of the accused viz. the first information report of having committed any crime. He, therefore, submitted final report in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Kota. However, the learned Judge by his order of that date refused to accept the final report on the ground that i...
Tag this Judgment!Gajraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC258; 2001(1)WLN496
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant is the original petitioner. He is a handicapped person studied up to B.Sc. and B.Ed. and is fully qualified for the post of Teacher Grade II (Maths). After undergoing due process of selection as provided under the law, he was duly appointed on the post of Teacher Grade II (Maths.) by order dated 27.2.1999. Accordingly, he joined his duties on 8.3.1999. He was relieved from his duty during summer vacation by order dated 15.5.1999. But by an order dated 27.6.1999, once again he was ordered to join duties upto 14.7.1999.2. One Shaukat Ali filed a writ petition No. 1705/99 before this Court showing the present petitioner as respondent No. 3 making grievance that his candidature was wrongly ignored and Gajraj Singh having lesser merit was appointed on the ground that required certificate was not in the prescribed form. The said petition came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.5.1999. Looking to the facts and circumstances of that case and...
Tag this Judgment!Rati Ram Vs. New India Assurance Co. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC596; 2002ACJ1100; 2001(1)WLC290; 2001(1)WLN493
ORDERMisra, J.1. An amount of Rs. 72.500/- was awarded to the petitioner by way of compensation on account of accidental death met by the mother of the petitioner-Smt. Anandi Devi. While the matter was pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur, Lok-Adalal was held wherein a compromise was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.l- The New India Insurance Company and also against another Insurance Company United India Insurance Company, (who is not the party herein as it has already paid the amount to the petitioner in execution of the compromise recorded in the Lok-Adalat). The respondent No.1 the New India Insurance Company however refused to honour the compromise recorded at the Lok Adalat on the ground that the said compromise was conditional as it was subject to verification of the documents. Challenging the compromise, it was further contended that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle which caused accident was not valid and hence the ...
Tag this Judgment!Liyakat Ali Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC116; 2001(1)WLN492
ORDERMisra, J. (1). The petitioner Liyakat Ali had filed this writ petition seeking permission to allow him to sit in the examination of Vth year Bachelor of Unani Medical & Surgery (for short BUMS Course) alongwith the uncleared paper of IVth year which was to be held from 16.8.99. The petitioner was restrained from appearing in Vth year papers on the basis of Ordinance of the University of Rajasthan which envisaged that student in higher class should not be allowed to appear in the papers of the higher class without passing out the entire papers of the previous year and since the petitioner has failed to clear VIth year paper, he was not eligible to appear in the Vth year paper, in the BUMS Course. (2). The petitioner however, had a reason to contest the matter on the ground that although he could not clear the paper of IVth year, he had applied for re-evaluation of one of the papers of IVth year and after his application for re-evaluation, it was the University which slept over the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajendra Prasad Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR350(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated May 24, 1999, setting aside the order of the assessing authority on the ground that the assessment made by the assess-ing authority for the block period 1986-87 to 1995-96 up to August 31, 1995, under Section 158BB to the extent that it rejects the return filed by the assessee under the proceedings for the different years disclosing the incumbent of purchase was not justified inasmuch as the assessing authority had necessary jurisdiction to assess the income to best of his judgment on finding that the income disclosed by the assessee in the returns filed in the proceedings did not disclose the income correctly. The Tribunal has not accepted resort to estimation submitted by the assessing authority, inter alia, on the ground that the assessing authority has resorted to the best judgment assessment without examining the materia...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Rajendra Prasad Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Raj)83
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the Tribunal, dated 24-5-1999, setting aside the order of assessing authority on the ground that the assessment made by the assessing authority for the block period 1986-87 to 1995-96 upto 31-8-1995, under section 158BB to the extent that it rejects the return filed by the assessee under the proceedings for the different years disclosing the incumbent of purchase was not justified inasmuch as the assessing authority had necessary jurisdiction to assess the income to the best of his judgment on finding that the income disclosed by the assessee in the returns filed in the proceedings did not disclose the income correctly. The Tribunal has not accepted resort to estimation submitted by assessing authority inter alia, on the ground that the assessing authority has resorted to the best judgment assessment without examining the material that has come in his possession during t...
Tag this Judgment!Central Arid Zone Research Institute, (Cazri) Vs. the Judge, Labour Co ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC261; 2001(1)WLN679
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner Central Arid Zone Research Institute through the Director (CAZRI), Jodhpur has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 10.3.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No. 53/1994 in favour of the respondent workman whereby it was held that the termination of the respondent workman on 1.12.1985 was illegal and the petitioner was directed to take back the workman in service forthwith and to grant 50% back wages from the date of reference i.e. 4.6.1994 till he was reinstated in service.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Chhangani submitted that the State Government was not competent in making reference to the competent Labour Court because the respondent workman was an employee of the petitioner institution which is an integral part of Indian Council for Agriculture Research which is controlled by Union of India. He submitted that in almost identical case of the sister concern of the petitioner i.e. Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute,...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Thakur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC460; 2001(1)WLN633
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Kota, in Sessions case No. 52/1996 on 12.2.1999 for the offences under Sections 302, 325, 324, 323, 148 read with Section 149 of IPC.3. We are informed that the petitioner has already remained in jail for about 5 years i.e. 1/4 of actual sentence as per requirement of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, Rule 9 of the said Rules 1958 which stipulates;Parole period-A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, (one-forth) of his setence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoners has behaved well and his character has ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »