Rajasthan Court April 2000 Judgments
S.R. Sunder Through L.R. Vs. General Manager State Bank of Saurashtra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC326; 2000(3)WLN602
ORDERSharma, J. 1. Whether the beneficial umbrella of pension scheme can be extended to cover the employees who sought voluntary retirement prior to the advent of such scheme This common question falls for consideration in these writ petitions. (2). Regulation 29(1) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 (for short 1995 Regulations) reads and under: '29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement- (1) on or after the 1st day of November 1993 at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the competent authority retire from service. Provided........' Aforesaid regulation clearly postulates that pension on the voluntary retirement is payable to those employees who sought voluntary retirement on or after 1.11.1995, after completion of 20 years of qualifying service. According to Regulation 1(b), these Regulations shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 29.9...
Tag this Judgment!inder Singh Shankla Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(NULL)463
ORDERB.M. Kothari A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the penalty of Rs. 6,130 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 1991-92.2. I have considered the submissions made by the learned representatives of both the sides and have also perused the orders of the learned departmental authorities. The assessing officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) in relation to an addition of Rs. 30,000 made in respect of credit in the account of Smt. Damayanti Devi. This amount was surrendered by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings.3. It was explained before the learned departmental authorities as well as before me that a confirmation of Smt. Damayanti Devi was filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The said deposit was made by her after making withdrawal from her account with SBI City Bank account No. 38/1499 by cheque No. 6106671. She also ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Premchand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN183
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This matter comes up for orders on application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we deem it just and proper to dispose of appeal itself, as it concerns the dispute about termination of service of respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 1.1.1983 while he was working as helper in the Directorate of Agriculture, Bikaner.2. The appeal is against the order passed by learned single Judge on 31.8.1989 by which the petition filed by the appellants against the award of labour court reinstating the respondent No. 1 by finding that the termination of the service were invalid because of infraction of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court has agreed with the finding of the Labour Court that respondent Premchand was entitled to protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the concerned department having failed to comply with the conditions laid down under Section 25F o...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Mohd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN172
Rajesh Balia. J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The order under challenge reads to have been made on concession by the learned Counsel for the parties about governing of case by decision in another writ petition No. 4115/93 decided on that very day. However we find that counsel for the petitioner was not present when the order was made, therefore, recording of concession by the learned Counsel for the parties is apparently in the order erroneous under appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, who was also counsel appearing for the petitioners in writ petition has urged that his case being a case of war injury pay is not governed by the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4115/93 and he also urges that his case is distinguishable from the one which was made the foundation of the order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4115/93. We find these contentions prima facie sustainable and are of the opinion that the appellant did not get a fair opportunity to place his...
Tag this Judgment!Manchha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN267
ORDERChauhan, J.(1). The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking employment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules, 1996').(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner's father died in harness on 23.4.94 while working as Class IV employee in the Co-operative Department and as the petitioner was minor at that lime, after passing Middle Standard Examination in the month of April, 1997, he applied for employment on compassionate ground under the said Rules of 1996 by submitting an application on 19.5.97. However, after correspondence at different levels in the Department, the application was rejected vide order dated 25.3.98 (Annex. 4) on the ground that he was below 18 years of age and was not eligible for appointment. The petition has been filed on the ground that under certain Circulars issued by the Competent Authority, a person is e...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Ghanshyam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC491; 2000(3)WLN520
ORDERMathur, J.(1). We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment of the trial court dated 29th July, 1999.(2). The accused respondent Ghanshyam was charged for the offence u/Ss. 307, 325 and 323 IPC, whereas the accused respondent Ambalal for the offence u/Ss. 302 read with 114, 325 read with 114 and 323 read with 114 IPC. The learned trial court convicted accused respondent Ghanshyam for the offence u/Ss. 325 and 323 IPC and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. Respondent Ambalal has been acquitted of the offence u/Ss. 302 r/w 114, 325 r/w 114 and 323 r/w 114 IPC.(3). The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that on 4.5.94, while P.W. 1 Laxmi Narain was returning after answering the call of nature, he was intercepted by accused respondent Ghanshyam. After some oral altercation, accused Ghanshyam struck a lathi blow. It is alleged that his father accused respondent Amba Lal exhorted to kill Laxmi Narain as he (Laxmi Narain) had falsely i...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Vs. Mst. Ramrakhi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN182
Rajesh Bali, J.1. The parties have filed a duly verified settlement reached by them in respect of the dispute involved in this appeal. The appeal is against final decree for redemption of mortgage in favour of plaintiffs-respondents on payment of Rs. 10500/-as redemption money, which was deposited by plaintiffs in court. According to that settlement, respondent No. 4 Shyamlal has paid a sum of Rs. 63281/-in addition to the amount already deposited in the court under the preliminary decree for redemption of mortgage in full and final settlement of sum payable under the mortgage to the appellants and the appellants have agreed, on receipt of sum, to redeem the mortgage.2. In terms of this settlement, the final decree for redemption of mortgage is confirmed and the mortgage stands redeemed on payment of aforesaid additional sum by the plaintiff to the mortgagees-defendants today.3. The original mortgage deed which was produced in the court, may now be returned to plaintiff-respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Azad Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC481; 2000(2)WLN119
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants were accused on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 4/96. They were convicted for the offence u/Ss. 8/20 and 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act, 1985), and sentenced to undergo 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1.00 lacs and in default to further undergo additional imprisonment of two years vide Judgment dated August 12th 1998. Against this Judgment that the present action of filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellants.2. According to the prosecution story, the SHO Mangilyawas (Ajmer) received secret information on April 20, 1996 to which the SHO alongwith the other police constables rushed at the spot where accused-appellants were searched and Charas weighing 950 grams were found from the possession of accused-Azad Singh, whereas Charas weighing 480 grams and Opium weighing 130 grams were recovered from accused Jaipal Singh.3. Necessary memos were ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth Udaipur Through Secretary Vs. Smt. Motibai and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN250
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The matter comes for consideration of stay petition. However on perusal of the revision petition it becomes clear that the revision itself is not maintainable. The revision has been filed by Shri Suresh Kumbhat, Advocate without any Vakalatnama, inasmuch as, there is only a memo of appearance on the record of the revision signed by Shri F.S. Mehta, Advocate giving out to be the counsel in the trial court and having instructions to act and plead on behalf of the petitioner. Unfortunately, revision has not been filed by Shri Mehta and that the memo is signed by Shri Bhatnagar and Shri Kumbhat and then admittedly they are not the counsels in the trial court. According to the provisions of Order 3 Rule 4, CPC for filing such revisions, there has to be appointment of an Advocate by the petitioner or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under the power of attorney to make such appointment and every such appointment is to be filed in the court...
Tag this Judgment!Gram Panchayat Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN175
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We deem it just and proper to dispose of this appeal and the petition at this stage so that this protracted litigation may come to an end.2. The writ petition was filed by Gram Panchayat, Manadar challenging the order dated 26.12.1997 of the Collector Sirohi Ex. 7-A by which the Collector cancelled the auction made by the Panchayat of Papar Khar area lying within the pasture land at its disposal and directed Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sheoganj to carry out auction of the Papar Khar area of the Gram Panchayat on 28.12.1997. The petitioner appellant Gram Panchayat challenged the authority of Collector to interfer with the disposal of Papar Khar area within the pasture land, lying within Gram Panchayat and vesting in it interalia on the ground that Papar Khar being natural produce grown at the pasture land allotted to Gram Panchayat to vest in the Gram Panchayat is wholly without jurisdiction and without authority o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »