Rajasthan Court April 2000 Judgments
Virendra Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC227; 2000(2)WLN125
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the charge sheet dated July 10, 1997, order of converting enquiry from Rule 16 to Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short 1958 Rules) dated December 8, 1997, order of punishment dated August 4, 1998 of the Disciplinary Authority and order of Reviewing Authority dated March 11, 1999.2. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that initially enquiry under Rule 16 of 1958 Rules was initiated against him and charge sheet was served on July 10, 1997 which contained three charges of flouting the Government order in carrying out the transfers of 25 teachers, releasing payment by cash instead of cheque and releasing the amount of subsidy with much delay. After receiving the reply of the petitioner the respondent converted the enquiry from Rule 16 to Rule 17 of 1958 Rules. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated August 4, 1998 imposed punishment of stoppage o...
Tag this Judgment!Kera Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC639; 2000(2)WLN89
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Fourteen accused persons alongwith one Khetaram (since dead) were put to trial for offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 307. 307/149, 323, 324, 325 and 326, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur by the judgment dated May 21, 1981 acquitted eight accused persons viz. Jogaram, Chotharam, Deraram, Bhakarram, Muknararn, Manaram, Jetharam and Boraram of all the charges. The State has preferred appeal against acquittal of aforesaid accused persons. The appeal has been registered as D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 43/82. Accused Keraram son of Rawat Ram, Mangla Ram, Deva Ram, Gokul Ram, Magna Ram and Kera Ram son of Nena Ram have been held guilty of offence under Section 304/149, I.P.C. and each of them have been sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted and sentenced for the allied offences. They have preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 361/81 aggrieved of their conviction and sentence. Both the appeals are decided by common judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Nand Kishore and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN172
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The appellant State is aggrieved with the order passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 328/91 filed by the respondents. The respondents had prayed that they have been appointed in the first instance in the month of April as Nakedar in the Mines and Mineral Deptt. Their services were terminated on 5.2.1982 and they were reemployed in August 1982. Thereafter their services were again terminated on 31st July 1983. The termination of their services on 31.7.1983 was made subject matter of the reference as an industrial dispute which under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Jodhpur on 30.9.1988. Finding the termination to be illegal, they were reinstated with 50% of the back wages and continuity of their service and other consequential benefits. The award of the Tribunal was published on 20.3.1989. That award became final. On these premise th...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN170
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 45/99 filed by the State of Rajasthan. The petition has been filed on 5.1.1999 and affidavit in support of petition was sworn by one Hari Narain Paliwal Tehsildar alleging himself to be officer In-charge of the case. The order under challenge in the writ petition were orders dated 6.3.1997 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur in support of the present appellant setting aside the order of the Collector, Rajsamand dated 19.12.1996 for refusing conversion of the land in question. Against this order dated 6.3.1997 appeal No. 119/97 was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer which was dismissed on 14.10.1997 and a review application against the same No. 2/98 was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 20.5.1998. Thereafter about 7 months the writ petition in question has been filed by the Tehsildar. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Uda @ Suda Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN631
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.8.1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 32/80 convicting the appellant Uda @ Suda son of Dewa for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 8.4.1980, P.W. 3 Himta Ram submitted a written report at the Police Station, Sojat stating inter alia that his niece Mst. Seeta was married to Uda three years back and sister of Uda was married to her brother Laxman in exchange. A day before, his niece had gone to Kharchiya well for plucking Heena but she did not return. There was a rumour in the locality that Uda had forcibly taken his wife Mst. Seeta at about 10.00 or 11.00 A.M. towards Sojat. They also suspected that Uda might have killed her. The reason for the suspicion was that about one and half year back on the occasion of Holi, Uda had assaulted Mst. Seeta. He was also telling her that some day he will ...
Tag this Judgment!Roop Singh @ Jagroop Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN603
N.N Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.7.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh convicting the appellant Roop Singh @ Jagroop Singh, Nirmal Singh, Kor Singh and Gurmail Singh for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment to further undergo six months R.I.2. On 15.6.1984 at 10.00 P.M. PW/2 Mandar Singh submitted a written report Ex. P/1 at Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction, stating interalia that at about 6.00 P.M. he was returning form the field along-with his younger brother Jaspal Singh and PW/1 Jaskaran. Jaspal Singh was ahead of him at a distance of 2-1/2 bighas. When his brother Jaspal Singh reached near the field of Gurnam Singh the accused Gurmail Singh, Roop Singh, Kor Singh and Nirmal Singh armed with Gandasis came out from a 'Kotha'. Seeing them Jaspal Singh started running. Accused persons chased and caught hold of him. They assaulted hi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Kalyan Mal Vs. A.C.T.O.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN137
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dt. 2.8.1989 in Rectification Applications No. 2/89 to 5/89.2. The brass facts necessary for the purpose are that the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal vide its order dt. 3.8.1985 had allowed the special appeals filed by the dealer-assessee in respect of four assessment periods for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. For these periods the assessee had not filed any return Under Secttion 7A nor any assessment were framed Under Section 10(1)(b). The assessments, were made by the Assessment Officer for the first time in January, 1974 for four assessment years separately by way of best assessment judgment Under/Section 10(1)(b). The Tribunal in the first instance in its order dt. 3.8.1985 has held that the case of dealer who does not file any return whatsoever falls in the category of a case where whose turnover has escaped assessment and unless resort is taken to Section 12 for bringi...
Tag this Judgment!Alcobex Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN153
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This revision is against the judgment dt. 30.6.1993 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer in respect of assessment year 1988-89. The order relates to rejection of rectification application moved by the petitioner for rectifying the mistake which is alleged to be apparent from record.2. The brief facts and circumstances in which the present case arises as noticed in the order passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dt. 15.12.1992 are that there was a works contract between appellant dealer and the B.H.E.L. for the fabrication of Cupro-Nickle-Tubes. The appellant dealer did the job work in respect of the fabrication of the above tubes and supplied the same to the B.H.E.L. prior to 22.4.1988. The dealer in fabrication of the said tubes used Nickle valued Rs. 2,47,987/-. The other commodities used in execution of the said works contract were supplied by the B.H.E.L. for whom the job was executed. The assessing authority held that in execution of the works ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deram Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN584
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the award of compensation made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Balotra in MACT Case No. 36/89 decided on 17th Jan., 1992. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,03,840 as compensation. The appellant challenges quantum and disbursement of compensation to respondents No. 3 to 5.2. In an accident that took place on 3rd Feb., 1989, one Hanumana Ram, whose dependents are respondents No. 1 to 5, had died. The deceased at the time of his death was said to be of 15 years of age and earning about Rs. 14 per day at that age. The Tribunal by taking the life expectency at 70 years, as per the decision of this Court in Jamali and Ors. v. Lakha Ram and Ors. applying the multiplier of 53 found the gross amount of compensation at Rs. 1,24,800 by estimating the daily income on the basis of average earning which the deceased would have got on attaining the age of 18 and Rs. 5000 by way of solatium for the bereaved parents 20% of the same were...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC254; 2000(3)WLN412
ORDERChauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's land.(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had purchased the land on 17.4.1975 from respondent No. 4 to 6, measuring two Bighas and two Biswas. It appears that the mutation was not made in his name and in the meanwhile, a Notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') dated 4.2.1997 was published in the official gazelle dated 7.2.97 and the substance thereof was also published in the local news paper on 25.2.1997. Petitioner initiated the legal proceedings for mutation and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.4.97 and the land stood transferred in his name. Though petitioner had purchased the said land but he did not file any objection under Sec. 5-A of the Act and Declaration u/S. 6 of the Act was made on 15.6.98. Notices u/Sec. 9(3) of the Act were served upon the person...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »