Rajasthan Court May 2000 Judgments
Smt. Parvati Devi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN654
ORDERSharma, J.1. Petitioners are legal representatives of one Bhagwan Singh, who was working on the post of Patwari before his death on October 13, 1995. Grievance of the petitioners is that the deceased employee had completed more than 27 years of service prior to his death but benefit of selection scale in view of 'circular 1992' after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service was not given to him. The representations submitted by the deceased employee against communication of some adverse entries were not finalised in his life time. Deceased employee had completed 9 years and 18 years of service in 1977 and 1986, till then he was not communicated any adverse entry. He was informed about the adverse entries relating to the years 1983-84 and 1985-86 for the first time in 1990 against which he submitted representations within the prescribed period and thereafter he was never intimated about the decision taken. The petitioners claimed selection scale on completion of 9 and 18 years o...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN158
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of learned single Judge holding that the excavators which are machines mounted on tyres and are capable for using roads, fall within the definition of Motor Vehicles within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act and therefore are exigible to tax under Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act as Motor Vehicles.2. Both the learned counsel state that in like circumstances similar question has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Birla Cement Works v. State of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 149/2000 decided on 24-2-2000 (AIR 2000 Rajasthan 251) by holding that before determining tax under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, an opportunity of hearing is necessary to be given to the tax payer in which tax payer is entitled to raise an issue that machines in question are not motor vehicles within themeaning of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and thateven if they are motor vehicles, the same are not liable to tax because dominant use of such ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Shri Amara and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN145
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The petition filed by the appellant before this Court challenging the award made by the Labour Court, Bhilwara was dismissed by the order under appeal, finding that no case is made out for issuing a writ of certiorari. The respondent-workman has raised an industrial dispute about his alleged termination of service from 16.8.1988 on the ground that he was continuously working with the appellant since 1st August, 1985 until 16.8.1988 when his services were terminated and he has actually worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months immediately preceding the alleged date of termination. His services have been terminated unceremoniously without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The retrenchment could not have been brought about without following the procedure prescribed under the said Act. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government. The order ...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shri Kadar Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN149
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petition is directed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the benefit of pay protection of respondent No. I which he was drawing at the time of his recruitment through Union Public Service Commission to Indian Bureau of Mines from his immediately predecessor employer 'Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.' a Public Sector Undertakings of the State of Rajasthan wherein he was serving since 13.5.1983. The petitioner has extended pay protection to the respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 1.4.1992 instead of from 26.2.1990 the date when he was so recruited. The respondent No. 1 has approached Central Administrative Tribunal for seeking redress against not protecting his pay which he was drawing from the Public Sector Undertakings at the time of his recruitment with Indian Bureau of Mines from the date of recruitment but only from a later date. He placed reliance on the office memorandum of pay protect...
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang Lal and Co. and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corp. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC381; 2000(3)WLN431
B.J. Shethna, J.Whether the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short 'the RFC') being a disbursing authority is entitled to charge interest on a subsidy amount for the period from payment of subsidy amount to the petitioner till the receipt of the same amount by it from the State Government?1. This important and identical question of law is arising in all these petitions, therefore, all these petitions are disposed of by common order.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Vineet Kothari appearing on behalf of all the petitioners in these petitions vehemently submitted that in absence of any provisions either under the Act or Rules, the respondent-RFC is not entitled to charge interest on a subsidy amount disbursed by it to the petitioners. He also submitted that mere undertaking given by the petitioners will not be sufficient for the respondent-RFC to claim interest on a subsidy amount when there Is no such provisions under the law. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Das Vs. Smt. Mooii Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN307
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present revision petition arises out of the decision of the trial Court dated 9-11-1995 whereby an application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court.2. Learned counsel pressed before the trial Court that in view of Rule 19 of theRajasthan Civil Court Ordinance (hereinafter called 'the Ordinance'), this case is not liable to be tried by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The trial Court held that in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court the case has been transferred by the District Judge while exercising powers under Section 24 C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the decision of the Division Bench requires reconsideration for the following reasons :1. If Section 19 is held to be retrospective, the cases pending before District Judge of the valuation exceeding Rs. 10,000/- and upto Rs. 25,000/- would go to the Munsif and those exceeding Rs. 25,000/- and upto Rs. 50,000/- would go to Civil Judge, whereby...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Rakesh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC368; 2000(2)WLN191
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This Murder Reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by the judgment dated 14.12.1999 in Sessions Case No. 41/1998 for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the accused Rakesh. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC on the charge of committing the murder of his elder brother Ramesh in the intervening night of 17th and 18th April, 1998, being proved. Accused has also preferred an appeal from jail challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Accused Rakesh is being represented by learned Counsel Mr. J.S. Choudhary. The Murder Reference and the Appeal are decided by common judgment.PROSECUTION CASE:2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 18.4.1998 at 12.45 A.M., P.W. 3 Baldev submitted an F.I.R. Ex. P. 17 at the Police Station, Raisinghnagar, stating inter alia that they are five brothers and they are living separately. The wife of elder brother ...
Tag this Judgment!Cyanamid Agro India Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC533; 2000(2)WLN76
G.L. Gupta, J.1. M/s Cyanamid Agro India Limited and four others have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Todaraisingh under Section 29(1)(A) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, (for short 'the Act').2. The facts of the case are these. On 23.7.1992 the Insecticide Inspector inspected the shop of M/s Todaraisingh, Krya Vikrya Sahkari Samiti and took the sample of insecticide known as Dramet 20 E.C. chemical (chlorpyrifos) for analysis. The sample was sent to the Insecticide Laboratory at Durgapura from where it was opined vide letter dated 14.9.1992 that the insecticide was mis branded. Thereupon, the Insecticides Inspector gave notice to the vend or from whom the sample was taken and also the manufacturer of the insecticide and filed a criminal complaint against the vendor, the distributor and the manufacturer, on 17.6.1994.3. The contention of Shri Bhargava is that the insec...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN424
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 11.8.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in criminal appeal No. 2/1986 whereby the accused petitioner No. 1 Mangilal has been convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 3000/-; petitioner No. 5 Daya and petitioner No. 6 Kuiya have been convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and petitioner No. 2 Achla Ram, petitioner No. 3 Puriya, petitioner No. 4 Shankariya, petitioner No. 5 Daya, petitioner No. 6 Kuiya and petitioner No. 7 Vagta have been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to six months S.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-.2. After arguing on merits of the case for some time, learned Counsel for the petitioners does not wish to challenge the conviction and states that instead of requiring the accused petitioners to serve out the complete substantive sentence, it would be appropriate that ...
Tag this Judgment!Ladhu Singh Chaudhary Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN297
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal has been filed with a very chequered background, a writ 'petition No. 109/85 was filed by the legal representatives of Jeth Mal, the original plaintiff, against Abhay Singh S/o Daulat Singh, and Govind Singh, in which notices were ordered to be issued. However, during the pendency of that writ petition, Govind Singh died on 22.11.1986 and an application to implead his legal representatives was made on 13.2.1987. It further appears that process fee and notices were not filed by the counsel for the petitioner consistently. On 10.9.1993, the Court directed the petitioner to file Process Fee and notices within a week on the unserved respondents, with a peremptory directed that on failure to file Process Fee and notices, the writ petition shall stand automatically dismissed. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the direction, the petition stood automatically dismissed. This fact was recorded by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on 22nd February, 1994. Then...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »