Rajasthan Court January 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ghasi Ram and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC138; 2001(1)WLN441
ORDERShethna, J. (1). This special appeal is arising out of judgment and order dated 5.12.96 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing writ petition No. 2393/86 filed by the appellants-petitioners whereby the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal dismissing the suit of the appellants petitioners. (2). Facts which are not in dispute are as under: Appellants were in possession of the land in question since 1939 but they were cultivating the same since time immemorial. They led evidence in their favour before Asstt. Collector but no evidence whatsoever was led by the State. No. before evidence of rebuttal was led by the State trial court. On the evidence available the trial court decreed the suit. (3). Appeal against the same was dismissed by the first appellate authority i.e. R.A.A. was also dismissed. The State of Rajasthan filed review petition which was allowed and the matter was remanded...
M/S. DolphIn Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Judge, Labour Court Udaipur and anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR257]; (2001)IILLJ559Raj; 2001(2)WLC220; 2001(2)WLN468
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for Ihe appellant. (2). The appellant challenges Ihe order p|ssed by learned Single Judge rejecting his petition filed against the order pass,ed by Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur dated 14.3.2000 on an applicalion moved by respondenl Harish Gogna, a Medical Represeniative of the petitioner company, under Seclion 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent has moved an application under Section 33-C(2) before Ihe Labour Court on 31.12.1399 for quantification and recovery of a sum of Rs. 48,553.30 alleged lo be due from the petitioner appellant as remuneration for period from July 1997 to August, 1998. The respondent alleged the petitioner to be his employer. The petitioner did nol respond to the notice issued by the Labour Court of the application moved by the respondent workman and, therefore, the court directedthe proceedings lo conlinue exparte on 6.8.1999. Prior to proceeding exparle Ihe Labour Courl has received a ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Navyug Oil and Dal Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Raj)283; [2001]251ITR535(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue on whose behalf this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed.2. The respondent-assessee is a manufacturer of edible oil and cattle feed. For the assessment year 1993-94, the average yield of the oil extracted by the assessee from the mustard oil seeds was below 35 per cent. However, because of non-availability of all verifiable facts, the Assessing Officer did not accept the correctness of the result of the oil extraction and taking into consideration a number of facts estimated the percentage yield of oil from mustard oil seeds to be 36 per cent. and he also added estimated interest on interest-free loan advanced to the sister concern. The relevant facts forthe present purposes are that ultimately when the matter reached before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on the appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal reduced the estimated yield of the oil from the mustard oil from 36 per cent. to 35 per cent. and ...
Haji Abdul Mazid and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2175
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioners with the prayer that FIR No. 372/2000 dated 4-11-2000 of Police Station, Makrana District Nagaur for the offence under sections 406 and 420 IPC be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances :--One Zamil Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) lodged a report, on 4-11 -2000 at Police Station Makrana District Nagaur stating inter alia that on 13-9-1998 accused petitioners sold land mentioned in the report for consideration of Rupees 7,25,000/- to the complainant and the complainant paid that amount to the accused petitioners and for that an agreement was also executed between the parties and it was agreed by the accused petitioners that possession and registry would be done at the proper time. However, the registry has not been done in his favour by the accused petitioners and thus, accused petitioners by deceitful means took away Rs. 7,25,000...
Ajeet Singh Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR581]; (2001)IILLJ435Raj; 2001(2)WLC46; 2001(1)WLN439
ORDERShethna, J.(1). Notice to the respondents.(2). Learned counsel Mr. Mathur, who appeared for the respondents before the learned Single Judge, is directed to accept notice.(3). At the joint request and by the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and disposed of today itself.(4). Learned counsel Mr. Mathur submitted that against award dated 4.8.98 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, the appellant/petitioner filed writ petition no. 3215/98. He submitted that the appellant worked from 17.3.92 till his services were terminated as a daily rated workman at the rate of Rs. 22/- per day. The Labour Court found that the workman completed more than 240 days in a calender year. However, instead of . passing the order of reinstatement in service with back wages, the Labour Court has awarded only Rs. 9,000/- by way of compensation in lieu of reirenchment. Mr. Mehta submitted that once the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the termination was bad, then it sh...
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Baby and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC737; 2003ACJ125; 2001(2)WLC264; 2001(1)WLN444
ORDERSHETHNA, J.(1). This Special Appeal is filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'}, against the judgment and order dated 6th .July, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 101/93, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the miscellaneous appeal and confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner,(2). The claim petition was filed by the widow of deceased Vijay Kumar, who died at the young age of 25 in a road accident on 25.4.89. He was hit by a Bus belonging to the Corporation. He suffered mental agony for 4 days as he died on 28.4.89, due to the injuries received by him, leaving behind him his young widow in her 20 and two sons aged 3 years and eight months only and a widow mother aged 50 years.(3), The claimants claimed before the Tribunal that the deceased Vijay Kumar was earning Rs. 1800/-per month and he used to spen Rs. 1200/- towards them...
Avdesh Chander Vs. State and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC208; 2001(2)WLN342
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The appellant is the original petitioner. He was appointed as Constable on 28.12.65 and later on promoted to the post of Head Constable on 30.6.78. He was given further promotion on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in November, 1997. On completion of 18 years service, he was given Selection Pay Scale by an order dated 25.1.92 by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated 26.6.92. He was given Selection Pay Scale after completion of 27 years service as per order dated 25.1.92 by order dated 26.5.93 (Annex.2) passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar.(2). On 23.7.92 Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur) passed order to the effect that if an employee is awarded censure' then his service cannot be treated as unsatisfacotry and such employees are entitled for the Selection Pay-scale (Annex.3). On 24.8.95, another order was passed by IGP Rajasthan, Jaipur, to the effect that the employee who have...
Ranveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1666
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 1/96 on 4-10-1997 convicting the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, we have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record.3. From reappreciation of the evidence on record, the prosecution story as disclosed is that : on 17-8-1995, Badan Singh P.W. 1 lodged a F.I.R. alleging therein that on the same day at about 7.00 or 7.15 a.m. he was sitting at his Guvad, at that time, his younger brother's son Pabudan Singh came and sat near Charbhuja temple. Ranveer Singh came there having knife with him and inflicted knife blows on the chest of Pabudansingh. Another blow was inflicted on the back of chest while Pabudansingh was standing. Jagmal Singh P.W. 6, Bh...
ito Vs. Amar Singh Krishanchander
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(NULL)182
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.This appeal by revenue for assessment year 1992-93 is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Rajasthan-III, Jaipur, dated 24-4-1995.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records.3. Ground No. 1 disputes the learned Commissioner (Appeals)s direction to assessing officer to allow depreciation and interest to third parties out of income computed by applying net profit rate of 10 per cent. The learned Departmental Representative of revenue has contended that in fact they have challenged the reduction in net profit rate by Commissioner (Appeals) from 11 per cent to 10 per cent and that the rest of the matter they. are not challenging. He has contended that he relies on the Jaipur Tribunals decision wherein net profit rate of 12.5 per cent has been applied and so 11 per cent was reasonable. As against this, the learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held the ...
Balbari Vidya Mandir and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC295; 2001(4)WLN159
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant writ petitions are filed, questioning the order dated 14.8.1997, regarding deposit of contributory provident fund, with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur, being invalid to the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'the enactment of 1989') and the Rules framed by State Government, in exercise of its power under Section 43 of the said enactment, known as the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993) (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1993').2. In all these petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, these petitions deserve to be disposed of by a common order, treating SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1085/2000 as the leading case.3. In all these petitions, interpretation of Sections 5, 7(5), 10, 12 14, 16(2) and 43 of the enactment of 1989; and Rule 2(r) and (s) Rule 68 to 81 and Rule 92 of the Rule...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »