Rajasthan Court March 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.
Baljindra Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN704
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.12.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar convicting the appellants Sukhdev Singh and Baljinder Singh for offence under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC respectively. Both of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment to further undergo 10 months simple imprisonment. Both of them have also been convicted for the offence under Sections 324 and 323 IPC.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 21st July, 1994 at about 8.30 AM PW-3 Prakash Singh lodged an oral First Information Report stating inter alia that on 21st of July, 1994 at about 8.30 PM he heard the out cry of the wife of Mastan Singh. When he rushed to the spot, PW-6 Baljinder Singh disclosed that Mastan Singh and Richpal Singh had gone to the shop for marketing where a quarrel had taken place. He went to the shop of Nandram. Accused Lal Singh, Baljlnder Singh and Sukhdev Si...
East India Hotels Ltd. and Another Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Othe ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC62
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.1. The present writ petition and other writ petitions (mentioned in the appended Schedule) raise an interesting question of law in the matter of one lime tax scheme introduced by way of insertion of Section 3(1B) of the Finance Act, 1989 (Act No. 6 of 1989)(2). The questions for our consideration are that:-(1) Whether, fresh assessment is permissible under the law in respect of the land held by the previous owner who had exercised the option In terms of one time tax scheme prescribed by Section 3(1B) of the Rajasthan Land and Buildings Tax Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') even though the certificate exempting the aforesaid land from the future tax liability had been issued by the competent officer of the department? (2) Whether the lax under the Act is upon a land or building or both separately as units and when the properly in question has already been subjected to lax, the question of any further tax liability under the Act can arise merely on acco...
B.B. Bhalla Vs. Rameshwar Krishore Badhwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC490
ORDERSHARMA, J.(1). The suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent for eviction in regard to tenanted premises against the defendant appellant was based on the ground of default enumerated under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (for short the Rent Act). The defendant appellant submitted written statement denying the allegations. After plaintiff respondent filed a rejoinder, the learned trial court formulated as many as six issues out of which issue No.3 was as follows-'Whether the defendant committed default in making payment of rent? (2). Burden to prove this issue was laid on the defendant appellant. Learned trial court determined the rent under section 13(3) of the Rent Act. Thereafter vide order dated December 10, 1980 struck out the defence against eviction of the defendant under Section 13(5) of the Rent Act holding that the defendant did not deposit the rent for the month of November and December 1978 in time. The plaintiff resp...
East India Hotels Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj286; [2001]250ITR789(Raj); 2001(4)WLN217
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The present writ petition ana other writ petitions (mentioned in the appended Schedule) raise an interesting question of law in the matter of the one-time tax scheme introduced by way of insertion of Section 5(1B) of the Finance Act, 1989 (Act No. 6 of 1989).2. The questions for our consideration are :'(1) Whether, fresh assessment is permissible under the law in respect of the land held by the previous owner who had exercised the option in terms of one time tax scheme prescribed by Section 3(1B) of the Rajasthan Land and Buildings Tax Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), even though the certificate exempting the aforesaid land from the future tax liability had been issued by the competent officer of the Department ?(2) Whether, the tax under the Act is upon a land or building or both separately as units and when the property in question has already been subjected to tax, the question of any further tax liability under the Act can arise merely on acc...
Central Academy Society Vs. Raj. Non-govt. Edu. Institutions Tribunal ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC403; 2001(2)WLN266
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal dated 11.10.99 (Ex.6) by which the dismissal order passed incase of the respondent No,3 dated 22,2.1997 (Ex.1) has been set aside being in violation of Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and in violation of Rule 39(2) of the rules of 1993 framed thereunder.(3). The facts, in brief, leading to the present case are that the respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Teacher at the petitioner institution in October, 1986. In the first instance, her services were terminated vide order dated 3rd July, 1995, which order was set aside on appeal vide order dated 1.1.96 and the matter was remanded backto the Society for deciding the question afresh. Thereafter the order dated 22.2.97 was passed in purported exercise of power under proviso (iii) to Sec. 18. The termination order was also sent to...
M/S Udaipur Contractors Association Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC724; 2001(2)WLN226
ORDERMathur, J. (1). This group of Special Appeals is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the challenge to the Government Notifications dated 22.9.94 and 8.11.1996 issued by the Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, directing all the departments like Public Works, Irrigation, Public Health Engineering and other Central Government Departments/Organisations etc. to deduct 2% of the contract amount from the running bills of the contractors by way of royalty on provisional basis of assumed exploitation of minerals, if any, on the ground of it being a contractual matter, which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1989 S.C. 1076 and AIR 1996 SC 3515. The appellants-writ petitioners have been relegated to the remedy of civil suit.(2). The appellant-writ petitioners are the contractors carrying out the constructions awarded to them by different departments from time to time. Their say is that t...
Hakim Chand and ors. Vs. Raj Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC484
Sharma, J.(1). Matter was heard finally with the consent of the parties. In the instant revision petition the defendant petitioners seek to challenge the order dated October 31, 2000 of the learned Additional District Judge Baran whereby the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the plaintiff respondent seeking amendment of plaint was allowed. The parties hereinafter shall be referred in the same manner as they were arrayed in the plaint.(2). Contextual facts depict that the plaintiff land lord during the pendency of suit for eviction moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. on August 9, 2000 with the averments that rent from November 7, 1999 to August 6, 2000 was not paid by the defendant tenants, therefore this ground of default in making payment of rent may be allowed to be added in the plaint. The defendants did not file reply to the application and opposed it orally. Learned court below allowed the application as indicated hereinabove.(3). Mr. B.L. Mandhana, learne...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vilas Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: 2001ACJ950; 2001(2)WLC335; 2001(2)WLN286
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Since these four special appeals raise common questions and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The main contention raised in these special appeals is that where on account of a motor accident an employee of the owner of vehicle dies while on duty in the course of his employment, whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured in respect of claims arising out of such accident under Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act') even in respect of liability to pay interest and penalty on account of delayed payment of compensation under the provisions of the Act.3. The case of the insurance companies is that liability of the insurance companies in respect of claims arising under the provisions of the Act is only confined to the principal sum of compensation and they are not liable to indemnify the insured in respect of liability to pay the interest or penalty which arise because of the fault of the ...
Paras Ram Suthar Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC597; 2001(2)WLN250
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J. (1). Heard Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sangeet Lodha, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Govind Mathur for responden! No. 4.(2). This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 23rd March 1995 appointing respondent No.3 and 4 as Carpenters in the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur and Jodhpur. The petitioner is one of the applicant for the said post.The eligibility for the post was that an incumbent must either possess III Certificate in Carpenter Trade alongwith two years' experience of a reputed establishment/shop or an incumbent must have passed examination of Secondary or its equivalent examination with five years experience of a Government Office or establishment. According to the petitioner, he was fully eligible for the post in question, since he was a graduate and was possessing experience of a Carpenter of a reputed establishment. The petitioner applied for the same and he was called for int...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University and Another
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC51; 2001(3)WLN542
Balia, J. (1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). This petition has been filed in 1993 by five persons working under the Directorate of Extension Educational the Printing Press of respondent No.1 Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner.(3). The undisputed facts which emerge from the material placed before the Court and the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner No.1 Om Prakash is working as Binder with the respondent since 1984. The petitioner No.2 Devital Nagda is working as Printer since 1981. The petitioner No.3 Satyanarayan is working as Compositor since 1983. The petitioner No.4 Munnilal is working as Compositor since 1986 and Lal Chand is also working as Compositor since 1986. The grievance of the petitioners is that all the persons named in Annexure-1 totaling No.7 including the petitioners are working continuously on different posts at the Printing Press at per hour wages and notwithstanding there being permanent posts they are not being considered for regul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »