Rajasthan Court April 2001 Judgments
Angoori Devi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN635
Verma, J. (1). Here is a case of widow whose husband Kajod Ram had died after superannuation on 23.3.1995. The order of superannuation is attached as An-nexure-1. The deceased employee was nol granted the benefit of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits during his life time. He had been reminding the department but no action was taken. He could not enjoy the retiral benefits in' his life time and had died on 27.3.1997. (2). The petitioner widow continued the efforts of obtaining the pension and gratuity and other retiral benefits by making continuous representations and reminders. She was running from pillar to post. None was prepared to pay any heed to her requests. It is stated that even her husband after retirement had become sick and because of paucity of funds he could not even be treated properly and ultimately died in the absence of proper medical treatment, leaving behind a minor son of 14 years and a daughter of 17 years. The burden of bringing up the minor children was...
Tag this Judgment!Vijai Construction Co., Bikaner Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN92
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. In this case, the notifications issued by the Government (Mines Department) dated 23-11-1989, 22-9-1994 and 8-11-1996 are under challenge. All these three notifications provide for collection of royalty from the contractors of the Government departments. The rate of royalty had been varied from time to time and as per the subsequent notifications, it provides for imposition of royalty @ 2%. 2. Today when this case was called for hearing, Shri R.L. Jangid, learned Addl. Advocate General, and Shri Vimal Mathur were directed to appear for respondents. They had been served the copies and they filed a copy of the Government order dated 18-11-2000 by which all the aforesaid notifications have been withdrawn. Therefore, the only question remains before this Court about the refund of royalty already collected, as the aforesaid Government order dated 18-11-2000 applies prospectively and does not waive the royalty imposed, the case was heard on merit. 3. Royalty is equiv...
Tag this Judgment!Rao NaraIn Singh Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Raj)16
Rajesh Balia, J.Four statements of cases were submitted by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, relating to assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68 arising out of the assessments made in the case of the same assessee. In each case two questions have been referred for the opinion of this court as the same were question of law arising out of common order passed by the Tribunal in respect of four appeals separately filed for each assessment years. However, as the questions involved in all these cases were identical, except that the amount in respect of which deduction was claimed and disallowed is different in each case, on the same set of facts they were consolidated and registered as one IT Ref. No. 2/1980. Instead of repeating the questions of facts of each case separately, we shall confine the reference to the statement of case in respect of assessment year 1964-65.2. This reference has been submitted at the instance of the assessee, who was unsuccessful in his claim for deduction in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Engineer Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN400
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned award dated 12.10.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Reference No. 8/97 whereby the Labour Court declared the termination of the respondent workman illegal and ordered the present petitioners to take him back in service and to grant all benefits of service but instead of awarding full back wages to the workman, he ordered to pay 50% of back wages that too from the date of reference i.e. 31.1.1997.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Goyal for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the reference proceedings before the Labour Court, the respondent workman had entered into compromise dated 13.4.1999 which is at Annex. 2 and as per the terms of the compromise, the workman was not entitled for back wages and he was required to withdraw the case and he was required to withdraw the case which he had filed before the Labour Court. Inspite of this, the Labour Court while declaring the termination had awar...
Tag this Judgment!Asarat Ali Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN170
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.2. Having perused the impugned judgment, statements of the eye witness PW-5 Ratna Ram, Site Inspection Memo, the Mechanical Examination Report of the Truck and the Cycle, I am satisfied that the learned courts below have not committed any error in convicting the petitioner for the offence Under Section 304-A and 279 IPC.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contends that the sentence awarded is excessive and is required to be substantially reduced.4. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the sentence awarded by the learned courts below is the maximum permitted sentence, I am inclined to reduce the sentence. In my view, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence Under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to imprisonment for a period of six months while maintaining the fine.5. Accordingly the revision petition is partl...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN305
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel, Shri P.P. Singh, appearing on behalf of the accused applicants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, Shri S.S. Rathore.2. Perused the case-diary of FIR No. 35/2001 and FIR No. 36/2001, relating to the same incident. The former was lodged by the complainant, against the accused applicants, whereas, the latter was lodged by the accused side.3. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the accused applicants that accused applicant No. 2, Kishno, in Bail Application No. 1337/2001, was injured in the same incident, and according to medical report, he received three injuries. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused applicants that the fatal stab-wound injury caused to deceased Devendra, is not caused by any of the accused applicants, but the same was caused by Pooran and Atendra.4. Looking into the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am persuaded to enlarge the accused applicants on bail.5. It is, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC347; 2002(5)WLC547
Yadav, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Satyaveer Singh, learned counsel appearing for non petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sharda wife of the petitioner. He has tiled his Vakalatnama in Court which may be placed on record.2. Mr. Ramswaroop, petitioner (husband) as well as non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sharda (wife) who are present in person before this Court are identified by their counsel. The petitioner is identified by Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Advocate and non- petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sharda is identified by Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate.3. From the perusal of the material placed before me and also from the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it is borne out that non petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sharda has lodged FIR No. 198/99 against her husband-petitioner upon which, the challan was filed before the learned Magistrate and when the statement of non- petitioner No. 2 was to be recorded then the petitioner-husband entered into a compro...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Manju Lata Gupta Vs. Union of India Postal Department, Through Se ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC771; 2007(3)WLN696
J.C. Verma, J.1. This petition has been filed by petitioner Manjulata Gupta against the respondents with the prayer for posting of petitioner to some circle office and also to conduct the enquiry for the harassment being caused to petitioner lady by her colleagues.2. The petitioner is in service of postal department since 1983 and is working as Postal Assistant. She was transferred to Returned Letter Office, where she is sole lady employee and all other employees are male. It is the case of petitioner that since 1996 she was being harassed by male employees by uttering derogatory remarks and abuses, which falls In the parameter of obscenity. The other employees were using filthy and vulgar language and it became difficult for petitioner to work at such a place. She filed repreated representations to the authorities but no action was taken. She had even named one Mohd. Hanif Khan, Postal Assistant, Suraj Group-D (IVth class employee), who was in the habit of uttering such vulgar words. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Pal Bagga Vs. Itat and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)200
By the courtAppeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :'Whether the mistake committed by counsel in advising the assessee and the assessee on such advice submitted return omitting a particular item to be shown in the return can be said to be an act committed by the assessee in concealing deliberately the item of income and thus is liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ?'Issue notice. Steps to be taken within a week....
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Rana Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN216
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The peetitioners State of Rajasthan and its Assistant Engineer have challenged in this petition the impugned award dated 5.12.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, whereby, the Labour Court ordered the petitioners to reinstate the respondent workman in service with 50% back wages from the date of reference i.e. 28.2.1996.2. Learned Counsel Shri Kotwani for the petitioners firstly submitted that the Labour Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the services of respondent workman was terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submitted that the respondent workman himself left the job and it is a case of abandonment of service. He, therefore, submits that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court be set aside.3. Whether the workman had left the job on his own or his services were terminated in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is a pure question of fact which cannot be gone into and decided by this Court...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »