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.
Firm Durga Lal Navneet Kumar Kasera Vs. Girdhar Gopal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC590; 2001(4)WLN353
Madan, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred challenging the order dt. 22.11.2000 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Bundi in Civil Suit No. 2/98 by which the application filed by the Devasthan Department under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of party was allowed.2. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are:- (1) that impleadment of Devasthan Department will defeat the entire scope of the controversy involved in the proceedings before the trial Court as the plaintiff respondent in connivance with the Devasthan Department wants to get the title decided in his favour and (2) that the defendant petitioner has already filed the written statement to the suit which was filed in the year 1998 and consequent upon impleadment of Devasthan Department it would enlarge the scope of the suit which is permanent injunction in nature and in consequential of which the petitioner's right would be prejudiced since the nature of defence wil...
Tarachand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3604; 2002(5)WLC502
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. By this criminal revision petition, Tarachand (petitioner) has challengedhis conviction for offence punishable under Section 354, IPC for which he was sentenced by the appellate Court to one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 4,000/- in (default, one month's SI).2. Facts In a very narrow compass. A written report (Exp. 1) was presented by Bhanwarlal & Banwarilal to the SHO, PS, Laxmangarh (Sikar) complaining therein that one Tarachand (petitioner) teacher in Primary School of their village Ramchandra Ka Bas has been indulging in culpable activities of outraging the modesty and molestation of school girls to whom Tarachand used to take in office room and after closing the room, the girls were forced by threats to get their clothes unworn then he fell on them with kissings. It has also been complained that due to his such culpable acts of molestation the girls have been frightened to go to the school and they stopped attending the school and, therefore on...
Executive Officer Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board Trust Vs ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC355; 2007(3)WLN224
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. A reference was initiated at the instance of respondent-workman-Amar Chand against his termination and for grant of back wages under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, While this matter was proceeding before the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, an application was filed by the petitioner under, Sections 9 and 11 of the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointment to Public Service and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 wherein Sections 9 and 11 lays down as follows:Section-9, Bar to regularisation of services--No person who is a daily wage employee and no person who is appointed on an urgent temporary basis and is continuing as such at the commencement of this Act shall have or shall be deemed ever to have a right to claim for regularisation of services on any ground whatsoever and the services of such person shall be liable to be terminated at any time with due notice:Provided that in the case of workmen falling within the scope of See. 25-F of the Industrial Dispu...
Jarnail Singh Vs. the Superintending Engineer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC117; 2007(3)WLN219
N.N. Mathur, J.1. In view of the short controversy involved, on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, this special appeal is taken up for final disposal.2. The appellant-writ petitioner submitted an application before the Divisional Irrigation Officer (Executive Engineer), Irrigation Division-II, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'D.I.O.') under the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1957 for shifting of outlet 22 MOD from stone No. 15.08/267.6 to stone No. 19/267.8 with a view to get a proper water supply for their fields. The D.I.O. sought technical report from the concerned Patwari, Ziledar and Assistant Engineer and made a recommendation to Superintendent Irrigation Officer, Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh Junction (hereinafter referred to as 'S.I.O.'). It appears that some objections were filed before the S.I.O. In view of this the S.I.O. send the matter back to the D.I.O. by order dated 29.07.1997 to hear all the persons concerned and procee...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC387; 2001(3)WLN714
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.(2). These reference applications have been filed under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act against the orders dated, 29.11.94 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, in RA No. 202/JP/1994 arising out of STA No. 4/JP/1990 relating to the assessment year 1986-87 and RA No. 203/JP/1994 arising out of STA No. 5/JP/1990 relating to the assessment year 1987-88. While making the assessment under Section 6(2) of the Sur Tax Act, 1964, the Assessing Officer held that the provision for depreciation on investments, provision for bad and doubtful debts, provision for foreign exchange losses, provision for development fund for bank's provision, are not 'reserves' for the purposes of compulation of capital employed under Companies (profits) Surtax Act, 1964.(3). Being aggrieved of the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee (Ann...
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2001
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC619; 2001(2)WLN284
ORDERShethna, J. (1). In persuance of the advertisement dated 15.6.98, the appellant-petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. III by order dated 12.10.98 (Annex. 2 to the petition) but he was not given actual appointment. He, therefore, earlier filed writ petition No. 4188/98 which was disposed of by our learned Brother Dr. Chauhan, J. on 14.1.99 by a brief order. As per the order, the petitioner approached the respondents for giving him posting order but the same was not done, therefore, contempt petition, No. 67/99 was filed. However, during the pendency of the contempt petition he was allowed to resume duty by the respondent No.3 by order dated 20.3.99 (Annex. 7 to the writ petition), therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of.(2). Since then i.e. 20.3.99, he served as Teacher Gr. 111. However, after lapse of period about 11 months, the petitioner was served with notice daled 17.2.2000 (Annex. 8) calling upon him to show cause within a week as to why hi...
Archana Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR677]; 2001(2)WLC477; 2001(2)WLN382
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The candidature of the appellant-original petitioner was rejected only on the ground that she had crossed age of 40, therefore, her case was not considered by the respondents. The same was challenged by her before this Court by way of writ petition No. 4165/98, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 15.1.99. Hence, this special appeal.(2). Learned counsel Mr. Parihar for the appellant submitted that under Rule 11 (B) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combind Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962, the petitioner was entitled to be considered as she is from women category. He submitted that under Rule 11(B) (1) of the Rules the upper age limit shall have to be relaxed by further 5 years in her case and that she has not completed 45 years, therefore, the respondents committed an error in rejecting her candidature,(3). We are afraid that we cannot accept this submission of Mr. Parihar. Before considering the aforesai...
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and anr. Vs. Shivani Mineral and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC122(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated April 15, 1998, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board.2. The assessee has made an application under the New Incentive Scheme, 1989 for sanctioning the eligibility for availing the benefit of the scheme. The District Level Screening Committee has rejected the application of the petitioner as belated one. The Tax Board vide its order under appeal has found that under the Incentive Scheme, 1989 specific power has been conferred on the District Level Screening Committee or SLSC as the case may be to condone the delay and consider the delayed applications not only under the Scheme of 1989, but even such application under the Scheme of 1987 which have been rejected only on the ground of delay, and directed the District Level Screening Committee to consider the application on merit in accordance with law.3. Considering the application for condoning the delay, the Tribunal has held that it was a case of condoning the delay. Thoug...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishna
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2001
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC267; 2002(4)WLN265
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This State appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.12.1989 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Abu Road in Criminal Case No. 18/84. by which the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent of the charges under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. It arises in the following circumstances:P.W. 1 Mohan Lal lodged a report (Ex.P/1) on 4.12.1983 in the Police Station Abu Road stating that there was a cabin of Pan in the street of Ramji Mandir and in the night of 3.12.1983, P.W.1 Mohan Lal after putting a lock in the cabin went to his house and early in the morning at about 6.30 a.m. when he came to the Cabin, he found the lock of the cabin opened and also found a 2-in-1 tape-recorder of Sony Brand, missing.On this report, the police registered a case and chalked out a F.I.R. Ex.P/5 and during investigation, the accused-respondent was arrested by P.W. 5 Laxman Singh on 6.12.1983 and on 7.12.1983, the accused respondent gav...
Ram Gopal Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC265; 2001(4)WLN421
ORDERNaolekar, J. 1. Petitioners in all writ petitions were appointed as Field-man/Supervisor/Village Level Workers in the Agriculture Department of the State of Rajasthan. Thereafter they were promoted to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer. The services of the petitioners were initially governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960. Subsequently, in the year 1978 the respondent No. 1 State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed rules for regulating recruitment to the posts in, and the general conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service, namely, the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Rules of 1978'). Under the Rules of 1978 the recruitments or appointments to the post in the service are to be made by two methods, namely, (i) by direct recruitment in accordance with Part-I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »