Rajasthan Court December 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.
Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC218; 2002(5)WLN465
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary.2. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482, CrPC for quashing the F.I.R. No. 255/1998 registered at Prevention of Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 119 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Junior Accountant in the Panchayat Samiti, Neem Rana, Alwar. His job in the office is to maintain the accounts of the Panchayat Samiti. On 21.6.1996 Education Extention Officer produced a note sheet along with a list of books before the Panchayat Samiti, Neem Rana, Alwar, mentioning their in that the books rnentioned in the list is necessary for the Schools of Panchayat Samiti. On 26.6.1996 Pradhan given the acceptance for purchasing of those books, and on the same da...
Smt. Gulabi Vs. Judge, Mact, Ajmer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC258; 2002(2)WLN165
Verma, J.1. The appellant is the injured claimant in this appeal who had filed a claim petition before the MACT Ajmer. An application was also moved alongwith the claim application for seeking interim relief as was required under Section 92-A of the Unamended Act, which was application at that time.2. The Tribunal concerned, dismissed the aforesaid application filed for seeking interim relief on 15.9.1989, therefore, the parties had led the evidence. It is stated that the whole of the evidence was led by the Tribunal vicje its impugned award and dismissed the said application. The Tribunal had also found that the passenger in question was a gratuitous passenger and therefore, she was not entitled to any amount of compensation.3. In my opinion, the reasons given by the Tribunal are not tenable in laws for the reason that any order passed on the application for interim relief has no binding force while deciding the main case. The main case has to be decided on the pleadings, evidence and...
Ganesh Das Majumdar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC486
Yadav, J.(1). Although, all these aforesaid 26 writ petitions are posted today, for admission but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, 1 propose to decide these writ petitions on merit, at admission stage.(2). In the aforesaid writ petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, all these writ petitions can be disposed of by a composite order. While deciding these writ petitions, by a composite order, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 624/2000 is treated as a leading case.(3). All these writ petitions have been filed, challenging the validity of the notification, dated 21.7.99, Annex. R/5 to the reply, whereby, the State Govt., in exercise of its powers, conferred Under Section 32 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1948'), constituted Registration Tribunal, consisting of the persons, named therein, for entertaining applications for registration, accompanied by prescribed fee of Rs. 800/-, within a period of three months, fro...
Bhagwati Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand Jitendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC417; 2003(1)WLN506
Gupta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. Both the learned Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs suit for eviction filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and non-user of the premises. 3. Regarding default, it was claimed that the rent is in arrear since 26.1.] 989. The suit has been filed on 21.1.1993. 4. It has been found by the learned Courts below that the rent was tendered by the defendant by Money Order Ex.A/2, Booking Receipt thereof is Ex.A/1, and that was refused by the plaintiff, and thereafter it has been regularly deposited in the Court & Section 19-A. 5. The learned counsel has shown me the originals of the Ex.A/1 and A/2. True it is that on Ex.A/1, the detailed address of the plaintiff is not mentioned, but then it purports to be a receipt for booking a Money Order No. 5295 for a sum of Rs. 750/- on 29.1.1992 as appears from the postal seal of the Post Office. Then regarding Ex.A/2, it is contended that this paper does not bear any seal of the...
J.K. Udaipur Udhyog Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: [2003]131STC176(Raj); 2003(1)WLN281
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These appeals raise common issues of interpretation of the Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Exemption Scheme, 1998/Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1998, and effect of notification dated September 30, 1999 bringing about a change in the scheme affecting the claim of sick units which are engaged in manufacturing cement but have not availed benefit of exemption from payment of tax or deferment of tax previously. Hence are heard and decided together.2. It will be appropriate that before we set out the issues requiring consideration, we notice the facts relevant to these appeals. The State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 notified a consolidated scheme extending exemption from payment of tax for certain industrial units known as the Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Exemption Scheme for Industries, 1998 (hereinafter r...
State and anr. Vs. Umrav Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN565
Tatia, J.1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties on application filed by the appellant under Section 151 read with Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. 2. The appellant submitted that due to bona fide mistake the appellant impleaded respondent Sheikh Sharif AH S/o Mulla Ali Mohammed as respondent No. 2.In the decree-sheet after the name of Sheikh Sharif Ali, the word 'BAJAY' was mentioned and thereafter, the name of Hakimudeen S/o Mulla Mohammad Hussain was mentioned. While preparing the memo of appeal, the word 'BAJAY' could not be noticed. As a matter of fact, since Sheikh Sharif Ali died before the decree was passed in the original suit, the name of Hakimudeen S/o Mulla Mohammad Hussain may be shown in place of Sheikh Sharif Ali as respondent No. 2. Hence, the appellant wrongly impleaded deceased Sheikh Sharif Ali instead of hakimudeen, therefore, he has requested that appellant may be permitted to implead hakimudeen as a party respondent in place of Sheikh Sharif Ali. This application was filed...
Badri NaraIn and ors. Vs. Mubarak Ali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ679
J.C. Verma, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its award dated 20.7.1992 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 407 of 1988. The claimants are the husband and children of the deceased who had died in an accident on 5.5.1988 when she was hit by a bus No. RNB 7186. She was injured and later on she died in the hospital. After framing necessary issues, the Tribunal had awarded the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 only. The husband and the children had filed an application for claim on the ground that they have lost the love and affection and also the services of the deceased. The deceased was the housewife. The Tribunal had found that she must be rendering the services to the family and Rs. 300 per month was assessed and the multiplier of 15 was applied. The husband had also lost his companion and the deceased was 30 years of age.2. In my opinion, the learned...
Bharat Construction Company Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN294
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that his rejection at the stage when the respondents were to judge the pre-qualification is not proper. The respondents considered the applications of the prospective tenderers at the pre-qualification stage. At that stage, tenderers were judged departmentally. The interested parties were not given any opportunity to establish their claims before the authority which decided the fate of those who deserved consideration.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner this is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Any decision making process which is in violation of the principles of natural justice is to be depricated. He draws support for his contention on the basis of a decision of this Court reported in 1991 (2) WLC 361 (Shree Mahalaxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Private Limited v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.) and has placed reliance on the paras 34, 35 and 36 which r...
Charan Das Kalla Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1600; 2002(4)WLC482
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Appellant-petitioner in this case, which working as Class IV servant in the Municipal Council, Jodhpur, was promoted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector on 17.4.1984. Thereafter, by order dated 20th November, 1991, following order was communicated to the petitioner, who was then working as Assistant Sanitary Inspector:^^dk;kZy;uxj ifj'kn] tks/kiqjA %%&vkns;'k&%%Jh pj.knkldYYkk] lQkbZ teknkj dk inLFkkiu i'kqo/kx`g ls egkeafnj lQkbZ {ks= esa dh tkrhgSA Jh dYyk lQkbZ fuuh{kd ds funsZ'kkuqlkj dk;Z djsaxsAlgh@&vk;qDruxjifj'kn] tks/kiqjAfnukad20-11-19923. This order appears to be merely a posting order, of Assistant Sanitary Inspector Shri kalla to the post of Sanitary Inspector Shri Kalla to the post of Sanitary Jamadar, who had earlier been appointed as Incharge of the Slaughter House by order dated 30th April, 1990 (Annx.7). Treating it to be an order of reversion from the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector to Sanitary jamadar, without fo...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Mool Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN603
Mr. R. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The respondent-applicant before the CAT had been initially appointed as Signalman on 26.6.66 and after serving 15 years actively and being kept on reserved list for two years, he was retired from the services on 31st August, 1981. Thereafter, he was re-employed in the Telecommunication Department as Telephone Operator on 26th February, 1982 in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-480. At the time of his retirement, the applicant was drawing pay of Rs.250/- plus 20=270, which was more than the minimum of the pay-scale in which he was appointed on re-employment. So also the minimum of the pay-scale applicable to the post of re-employment was lower than the maximum of the pay-scale in which the respondent-applicant was drawing his emoluments at the time of his discharge from the defence service. His pay-scale at the time of retirement was Rs. 205-265. By considering that the respondent-applicant has been appointed in pay-scale higher than in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »