Rajasthan Court December 2000 Judgments
Jeewan Ram and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC542; 2001(2)WLN343
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The petitioners who are residents of village Gagdiyala were recorded as persons in possession of land in Samvat 2012 in the 'lands summary'. The common premises are that prior to 2012 before commencement of the Tenancy Act, no land records were kept in respect of Ihe land in question by the erstwhile State; the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration before the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation), Kolayat that they are the Chair Khatedari lenants, that suit was decreed on 9.7.1986. The learned Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) relied on the entry in the land summary of Samvat 2012, the land revenue receipt, the copies of Girdawari of Sarnvat 2015 to 2028 as well as copy of the Dhalbanch for Ihe same period and oral testimony of Ihe witnesses of the villagers in support of their claim that they were in possession of Ihe land since long time before the Tenancy Act since the time of their ancestors. The land revenue ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Ram and Others Vs. Board of Revenue and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC168; 2001(2)WLN65
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). These four writ petitions raise common question of fact and law, therefore heard and decided together.(3). The case of the petitioners in these cases are that the land in question was entered in their respective names as 'Gair Khatedar'. An attempt was made earlier by the respondent, State of Rajasthan to declare this land as a gochar land by holding that entries are wrong. The matter went up to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held against the Slate of Rajasthan by holding that the disputed land in question belongs to pasture land is triable by the Civil Court and not by the Revenue Court. The said judgment was challenged by the State of Rajasthan before this Court in 17 separate will petitions of which the persons who have filed these petitions were also parties.(4), This Court by its order dt. 26,8.86 dismissed the writ petitions filed by the State in respect of the very same land in question by affirming the or...
Tag this Judgment!Nema Ram Jakhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC538; 2001(1)WLN461
Chauhan, J.1. Both these petitions have been filed for quashing the advertisement dt. 20.4.2000 as it provided for 100% reservation for female candidates and giving preference to candidates on the basis of residence for appointment of 'Shiksha Sahyogi' in Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathshala and further to direct the respondents to advertise vacancies afresh calling applications from alt eligible candidates.(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are (hat vide advertisement dated 20.4.2000, respondent No.2, the Director, Primary Education, invited applications only from female candidates for being appointed as Shiksha Sahyogi in primary and upper primary schools under the aforesaid Scheme. The said advertisement also stipulated for preference on the basis of residence clarifying that a candidate coming from outside the Gram Panchayat shall not be appointed. Hence, these petitions challenging the advertisement itself on various grounds.(3). Earlier this court has de...
Tag this Judgment!Randhir Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN298
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by which a prayer has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the time granted vide judgment dated 22.9.2000 for depositing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- and a surety in the like amount and also for paying Rs. 2000/- as compensation by each accused petitioners to P.W.2 Ramniwas and P.W.9 Dharampal be extended.2. It may be stated that this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.9.2000 while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for offences Under Sections 324, 447, 323/49 and 148 I.P.C. directed the accused petitioners to be released on probation Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar within a period of two months from today to keep peace and be of good beha...
Tag this Judgment!Bashir and ors. Vs. the State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN346
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have challenged the order framing charges against them for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324/149, 427 & 395 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Deeg by his order dated 27.3.2000. They have also challenged the orders dated 10.3.2000 and 15.3.2000.2. The factual matrix of the case is that it was alleged that on 10.3.1988 at about 10.00 am. when the informant Rajendra prasad was sitting at his shop in company of his brothers Hotilal, Kanhaiyalal and Dharmendra, the accused persons namely Chhaju Khan, Bannu Khan, Nasru Khan, Zakir Khan, Mumrej Khan, Razak Khan, Kallu, Nannu, Ramesh Mishtri and four others who were unknown came to the shop. Nasru khan was armed with a pistol while Mumrej had a farsa and the rest had lathies and jellies. All of them came and opened assault with an intention to kill. Mumrej dealt a blow on the person of Hotilal resulting an injury on his head. Hotilal is the real b...
Tag this Judgment!Kishna Ram Vs. State and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1615Raj; 2001(2)WLC671; 2001(2)WLN32
ORDERShethna, J.(1). This special appeal is filed by the appellant workman against the judgment and order dated 16.8.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5700/93, whereby, the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan and Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D., Sub- Division, Raniwara, District Jalore against the impugned award dated 22.1.1993' passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in favour of the workman ordering reinstatement of workman in service with full back wages from the date of termination dated 19.10.1987.(2). The appellant workman claims that he was initially engaged as helper in village Karda-Diga, Water Supply Project in 1982. In 1985 he got the status of work charged employee and paid Rs. 548/- per month. Without following the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Public Works Uepartmenl (Building and Roads) including Gardens Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work-Charged Employees Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Silver and Arts Palace
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Raj)486; [2001]248ITR69(Raj); 2001(2)WLC205; 2001(1)WLN645
Arun Madan, J. 1. By this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the Revenue has challenged the order dated September 22, 1999 (annexure 3), of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur (for brevity, 'the ITAT'). 2. The assessee (respondent) being a registered firm as manufacturer and exporters of precious and semi-precious stones, handicrafts, jewellery, etc., had filed its return for the assessment year 1996-97 declaring its total income of Rs. 1,51,000 while claiming deductions under Section 80HHC of the Act at Rs. 80,12,786. Its return was selected for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act and during the assessment, the Assessing Officer found that its sales included counter sales of Rs. 9,76,40,672 on which the asses-see had claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, who assessed the total income at Rs. 82,74,190 as per Explanation (aa) to Section 80HHC of the Act vide an order ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdula @ Patla Abdula and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC757; 2001(4)WLC337
J.C. Verma, J.1. This Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 5.4.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli camp Shahpura (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 669/1993 wherein an award of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been ordered to be paid as compensation.2. There was a head-on collision of bus No. KL-9/9828 on the night of 26/ 27th February, 1992 which bus was being driven by Vijay kumar with truck No. DIL 323 causing severe injuries to one Rahim Khan, a passenger of the bus who died at the spot. Other passenger Mohd. Abu Bakar @ Mohd. also sustained injuries. The truck belonged to one Nanak Chand Sethi and was being driven by Guru Bachan Singh. An application for compensation was moved by the parents and the sister of the deceased Rahim Khan who is said to be looking after the business of his father in the name of Patla Motor Service.3. Necessary issues in regard to negligence of driving of the bus, quantum of c...
Tag this Judgment!A.C.T.O. Ward-i Circle-b, Bikaner Vs. M/S Divisional Superintedent Eng ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC274; 2001(2)WLN173
ORDERBalia, J.(1). This petition is filed against the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 15.06.2000 which relates to setting aside the penalty levied u/S. 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for late Tiling of returns for the Assessment Year 1987-88 and 1989-90. It is not in dispute that before imposing the penalty u/S. 7AA, no notice was issued to the assessee. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no discretion is vested in the Assessing Officer for levying the penalty and, therefore, rules of natural justice are implicitly excluded before imposition of penalty u/S. 7AA for late filing of the returns.(2). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is stated to berejected. The provisions of Sec. 7AA reproduced below clearly answers the question raised by the petitioner:-'7AA. Penalty for failure to furnish returns - If the assessing authority in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any dealer has without reason...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. District Women Development Agency, Banswara and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR176]; 2001(4)WLC93
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The appellant workman has challenged in this special appeal, the judgment and order dated 18.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing writ petition No. 2374/98 filed by the respondent District Women Development Agency, Banswara (for short 'the Agency') whereby he set aside the award passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur in favour of workman awarding reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of termination from service.(2). The respondent Agency is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It is engaged in carrying out various programmes/schemes sponsored by the State Government and Union of India for upliftment of women and children in the rural and tribal areas.(3). On 26,3.93, a requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange, Banswara seeking names' of eligible candidates for appointment on the post of L.D.C. and Stenographer purely on temporary and ad hoc basis. Accordingly, the employment exchange sent the names of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »