Rajasthan Court April 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.
Nehru Bal Vatika Vidyalaya Management Committee Vs. State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC228; 2001(3)WLN703
Verma, J. 1. Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Act, 1989 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) and the rules made thereunder provides that no employee of a recognised institution shall be removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given by the management a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken. A further provision has been made to the effect that no final order in this regard shall be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained. Section 18 reads as under: 18. Removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employee- Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf, no employee of a recognised institution shall be removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given by the management a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken. Provided that no final order in this regard shall be...
Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(76)ECC438; 2001(133)ELT301(Raj); [2002]126STC324(Raj); 2001(3)WLN409
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This petition has come in a peculiar circumstance. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the CEGAT against the order passed by the respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Ajmer. He also moved an application for staying the recovery during the pendency of stay application before the CEGAT and which was pending for consideration and no final order has been passed on that application for staying the recoveries and dues during the pendency of stay application or application filed before the Tribunal. The Central Board of Excise and Customs had issued guidelines for the officers of the department to follow and deal with the guidelines for recovering the dues during the pendency of stay petition/application before the appellate authorities. It will be apposite to reproduce the circular dated March 2, 1990 (annexure 9) hereinbelow :Circular No. 7/90-CX.6, dated March 2, 1990[From F.No. 208/107/89-CX.6]Government of IndiaCentral Board of Ex...
Kishan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC204; 2001CriLJ3617; 2002(5)WLC768; 2001WLC(Raj)UC36; 2001(3)WLN311
ORDERB.J. Shethana, J.1. The petitioner accused is a petty vendor. He is 'Kmnhar' staying in a small village Harni Bari, Distt. Bhilwara. By selling cow milk, he was earning his bread. On 30-3-86, when he was going on his bicycle at Teja Ji Ka Chowk, Bhilwara, he was intercepted by the Food Inspector and sample of cow milk was taken from him for the purpose of analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the public analyst shows that it was adulterated in the sense that It was having less milk fats and milk solids not fats described under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act'). On receiving the said report, a complaint was filed on 5-1-87 against the petitioner accused for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. The charge came to be framed against the accused for offence under Section 7/ 16 of the Act by an order dated 21-6-88 passed by the learned Magistrate. ...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Naresh Kumar Saxena
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC324; 2001(4)WLN468
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J.(1). Heard counsel for both the parties.(2). This Review Petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and the Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Governmenl of Rajasthan against the order dated 15th May, 1997, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 792/1995 and the order dated 5.10.1995, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6359/1994.(3). We have perused the orders, passed by the learned Single Judge and the learned Judges of the Division Bench.(4). The writ petition filed by the respondent-herein was allowed by the learned Singlt Judge by order dated 5.10.1995, on the ground that since the respondent-herein had been holding the post of Certified Surveyor on adhoc basis for over 15 years, hecould not be put to disadvantageous position because the said post was declared to be a dying cadre. The learned Single Judge has further observed that had the post of Certified Surveyor continued, he ...
Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj381
R. Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition which has been referred to Division Bench as a public interest litigation is to challenge Annexure-9 dt. 22nd August, 1998 by which the land allotted to School on 6-10-95 was cancelled and declared as a Government land and thereafter the said land has been allotted to respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8. The allotment made in favour of the School was cancelled on a review petition filed by respondent No. 7, Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Udami Ram. 3. The chequered history of the case shows that the respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 through an indigenous device indirectly obtained the allotment of the very same land which was made in favour of the School and earlier litigation to secure that land by brother of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 and the respondent No. 8 Labh Singh himself has failed before this Court. 4. The genesis of present controversy dates back to 1974, in Chak 4 SNM, Tehsil Hanumangarh in District Sri Ganganagar, three...
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Karamchari Rajya Beema Nigam and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ104Raj
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by learned single Judge dated September 10, 2001 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 154/2001 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No 155/2001, which arose under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 in respect of an order passed by E.I. Court on an application made by the Board.3. In these two appeals, by notification dated March 14, 1985 issued by the Central Government the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'The E.S.I. Act'), has been extended to Hanumangarh Junction and Hanumangarh Town. As a result of the said notification E.S.I. Scheme became applicable and operative in the aforesaid areas w.e.f. March 16, 1985.4. After the extension of the provisions of the Act to the area of Hanumangarh Town and Hanumangarh Junction, the Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation, inspected the premises of the Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B. (O&M;), Hanumangarh Town, in the pr...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharmi Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1222; 2001WLC(Raj)UC789
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The present appeal is against the award dated 8.5.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer in Accident Claim Case No. 126 of 1996, by which the Tribunal passed the award of Rs. 1,63,000 and held that the appellant insurance company is liable to make payment of the above amount. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.2. Being aggrieved against the above award, the appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., had preferred this appeal on the ground that the appellant insurance company is not liable for the award amount because of the fact that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy inasmuch as that the vehicle which is involved in the accident was a private Jonga jeep and it was insured as a private Jonga jeep but the same was used as a taxi for taking the passengers on hire or reward. For this purpose, learned Counsel for the appellant has cited the judgments reported in: (1) Oriental Insurance Co. Lt...
Sujata Malhotra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC604; 2003(1)WLN216
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner has assailed penalty of removal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority State Government (respondent No. 10) by its order dated 28.8.1992 (Ann. 35) in disciplinary proceedings initiated against her under charge sheet dated 17.11.1987 (Ann. 5).2. Two charges were framed against the petitioner:(1) that she is guilty of having remained wilfully absent from government service while working as Dietician, SMS Hospital, Jaipur for a period from 11.10.1982 to 11.1.1987; and (2) that she is guilty of having gone abroad (Nigeria) without prior intimation and permission by obtaining No Objection Certificate from the State Government and the Head of Department. To the aforesaid charges, a statement of allegations was also served upon the petitioner.3. For charge No. 1 it has been alleged in the statement of allegations, the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of extra ordinary leave from 11.10.1982 for three months on the ground of her newly...
Man Phool Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN663
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant has made an application for allotment of land in question way-back in 1979 which has been allotted to another applicant, who has also moved an application around the same time. The appellant-petitioner has sought allotment as sub-tenant of one Nathu, who sought to step into his shoes for permanent allotment as a sub-tenant.3. All the Revenue Courts as well as learned Single Judge has found that since the petitioner was claiming derivative right to move an application for allotment of land on permanent basis from Nathu, who was a former Ghair Dhakhilkari under the Allotment of Government Land to Ghair Dhakhildar Tenants in 45 Areas Conditions, 1970 (for short 'Conditions of 1970') and there is no evidence that said Nathu ever made requisite application for such allotment after land vested in terms of conditions of 1970.4. The learned Single Judge has found that since Nathu has not made any application for perman...
Prem Singh and ors., Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj309; 2001(3)WLN1
ORDERB.S. Chandra, J. 1. In these petitions, the common questions of facts and law are involved and the common impugned order dated 18-10-2000 passed by the Superintending Engineer, respondent No. 2, is under challenge. By the said impugned order, respondent No. 2 has passed certain directions to respondent No. 1 to readjust/remodel certain outlets. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that in all these petitions, petitioners are the agriculture tenure-holders having irrigation facilities and they are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18-10-2000. The writ petitions have been filed on the grounds that under the garb of issuing the rectification orders, the Appellate Authority has interfered with the irrigation outlets and the order stands vitiated for the reason that he is the Appellate Authority under the Act and the same could not have been passed by him as it deprived the petitioners from the right of appeal. It has further been contended that no notice u...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »