Rajasthan Court July 2000 Judgments
Jatanlal Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN625
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the authority of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1993 Supreme Court, P. 1601, it has been contended that in the circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff non-petitioner No. 4 could not be granted contract, as the petitioner was one of the Bidder in the initial auction and pursuant to the letter of the Chairman inviting for negotiations, he had given the offer of Rs. 1,50,000/-, as against which the plaintiff claims the contract only for a sum of Rs. 86,000/- and thus since the grant of contract to the petitioner would have been for the financial benefits of the Municipality, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with.2. Suffice it to say that totality of circumstances, prima-facie speaks volumes about the things that appear to be going on, in as much as according to the petitioner he had given offer on 1.5.2000, even according to him his offer had not been accepted and admittedly he did not fil...
Tag this Judgment!Barkat Ali and ors. Vs. Badrinarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj51; 2000(4)WLC390; 2000(3)WLN637
ORDERBalia, J.1. This special appeal has arisen in the following circumstances. The respondents are legal representatives of the decree holder Badrinarain and the appellants are the legal representative of the judgment-debtor Abdul Gani. The said Badrinarain obtained a decree against Abdul Gani in a mortgage suit on 11.5.52 in which an amount of Rs. 11,194.25 ps. was determined as payable by the said Abdul Gani from the date of final decree. The successive execution applications were filed for recovering the same sum. First application for execution was filed on 7.10.52 in which proceedings the decree was partially satisfied. The proceedings ended on 21.12.56. The second execution resulted in further partial satisfaction. The said execution terminated on 25.9.1957. The third execution application which was filed on 20th May, 1958 resulted in further partial satisfaction of the decree and the said proceedings ended on 6.8.1960. The present execution application for the recovery of remai...
Tag this Judgment!Firdosh Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR430]; (2000)IILLJ1569Raj; 2000(3)WLC127
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated April 8, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1335/1997 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner-appellant for quashing the orders (Annexure-6) dated August 27, 1992 passed by the Disciplinary Authority; Annexure-7 dated March 19, 1993 passed by the Appellate Authority and Annexure-8 dated March 4, 1995 passed by the Reviewing Authority and to declare them illegal. Further prayer by way of mandamus to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits was also sought. The said writ petition was rejected by the learned single Judge vide his order dated April 8, 1999 on the ground that the petitioner- appellant has filed the writ petitions after lapse of two years and therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained at such a belated stage. Accordingly, the writ...
Tag this Judgment!Maninga and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ5001; 2000WLC(Raj)UC759
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order dated 7-5-1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh by which :1. he acquitted accused Khatu, Nakuda Rakma, Ratna, Bheru and Badri of the charges under Sections 148, 324/149, 323 and 366, IPC;2. he convicted accused-appellant Maniga for the offence under Section 324/34, IPC and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and also convicted for the offence under Section 323/34, IPC and sentenced to three months RI and further convicted under Section 366, IPC and sentenced to one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month R. I.3. He also convicted accused appellant Manji for the offence under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to 3 months RI and also convicted under Section 324/34, IPC and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and further convicted for the offence under Section 366, IPC and sentenced t...
Tag this Judgment!Varda and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1283; 2000WLC(Raj)UC744
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 7-9-1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which :1. he acquitted the accused Varda of the offence under Section 376, IPC and further acquitted two other accused Jarnail Singh and Kalu Maharaj of the offence under Section 366, IPC, but2. convicted accused appellants Varda and Hariya under Section 366, IPC and sentenced each of them to two years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo for two months R.I.2. It arises in the following circumstances :-P.W. 7 Udailal lodged an oral report Ex. P/11 on 25-7-1980 in the Police Station Mavli District Udaipur to PW. 10 Umar Khan with the allegations that his son Chunni Lal was married with Mst. Kailash, P.W. 6 (prosecutrix) before 6-7 years back and since then she has been living as the wife of his son. On 23-7-1980, he went to Tarawat and in the house, his son a...
Tag this Judgment!Rikhabdass Jain, Contractor Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(NULL)526
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20-3-1987.2. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and requires no specific comments from us.3. Ground No. 2 relates to the addition of Rs. 54,650 comprising of Rs. 36.000 on account of partners salary, Rs. 10,187 out of depreciation on vehicle and Rs. 8,469 on account of lower profit from the contracting business. The learned counsel at the outset informed that he is not pressing the issue of additions out of depreciation on vehicle and marginal additions in the profit of contracting business. He, therefore, restricted his contention on the remaining issue relating to partners salary and submitted that the payment of salary to partners is specifically provided in clause No. 7 of the deed of partnership of the assessee-firm. He, therefore, contended that salary to the extent provided and authorised by the partnership deed is an admissible expenditure as per section 40(...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC450; 2001(1)WLN490
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This petition is jointly filed by 11 persons praying that the respondents be directed to impart training to them by correspondence course with all consequential benefits and reliefs as if they were never denied the facility of pursuing the training and if they successfully complete the training, the respondents be directed to give appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-Ill in the light of the order dated 3.4.1993 (Annex. 17) and other orders with all consequential benefits.2. In para 2 of the petition, it is stated that since a common point is involved in this petition and the relief prayed for by all the petitioners is the same, therefore, they have filed this joint writ petition and they may be permitted to maintain this joint petition. It is further averred in para 2 that all of them are out of employment and they are having no source of income, therefore, they are not in a position to file separate petitions in their individual capacity.3. It is the case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaram Yadav and ors. Vs. Rpsc and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN563
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioners who belong to Other Backward Classes (for short OBC) seek to quash the Notifications dated November 3, 1999 and November 12, 1999 whereby certain other castes were included in OBC. The petitioners further pray that the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination, 1999 (for short the Examination 1999) be conducted without taking into consideration the aforesaid Notifications and the castes mentioned in these Notifications be not treated as OBC for the purpose of the Examination 1999 and any event which took place after June 15, 1999 which was the last date for submitting the application forms for appearing in the Examination 1999, be directed to be ignored.2. First as to the facts. Upon receiving requisition from the State Government for filling up determined and apportioned vacancies on various posts in different States and Subordinate Services, an advertisement came to be issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commi...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. Bhagwana Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR157]; (2001)IIILLJ1285Raj; 2000(3)WLC452; 2001(1)WLN632
ORDERShethna, J.(1). Heard the learned counsel for the parties.(2). The respondent workman was working as a Conductor with the petitioner Corporation. He was found guilty for the charge of allowing passengers to travel without ticket for which, he was punished with stoppage of the increment with cumulative effect and to pay to the Corporation Rs. 500/- by way of financial loss incurred by it. However, the Labour Court passed the impugned award whereby the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative affect and order of Rs. 500/-was modified and in place of it, stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was ordered and the order was Rs. 500/- was also set aside.(3). This has been challenged by the petitioner corporation by way of this petition.(4). The Labour Court found that there was a thorough enquiry and after following all the procedure, he was found guilty and accordingly punished. In that case, it was not open to the Labour Court to modify the punishment order...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Copper Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC201; 2001(1)WLN495
ORDERMisra, J. 1. The petitioner Hindustan Copper Limited has filed this writ petition claiming interest on the amount refunded to it which had been deducted towards excise duty but was later held to be a wrongful deduction by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.C.W. Petition No. 1669/84 which was allowed in favour of the petitioner. The respondents herein had preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition which also was dismissed and thus the order passed by the Division Bench was upheld by the Apex Court also. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition for contempt before the Division Bench for compliance of its order which was finally dropped with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount which had been realised from them towards excise duty but Ihe prayer of the petitioner claiming interest on the amount of refund was not entertained by the Division Bench. However, an observation was made that it is open for the petitioner to proceed i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »