Rajasthan Court May 2001 Judgments
Ram Baransingh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC781; 2002(2)WLN431
Verma, J.1. Initially the petitioner was appointed as Constable Driver in the year 1965. He was promoted to the post of Lance Naik Driver and then Naik Driver after passing List 'B' and List 'C' promotional test. As a driver, it is stated that he had worked efficiently and there was no compliant what-so-ever. He has been retired pre-maturely on 19.12.1990 (Annexure-1) when he had completed 25 years of service. He was paid three months notice pay. He is challenging the order Annexure-1 on the ground that he was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the month of May 1988 itself and after such promotion there was nothing against him so as to deprive him the full service time superannuation and the order of pre-mature retirement is violative of Rule 56(j) of the fundamental rules and Rule 43(c)(i) of the CRPF Rules.2. Administrative Review Committee of Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi was constituted to review the cases of the employees. The Committee had found that the petitioner is n...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Shukla Vs. National Council for Teacher Education
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC833
Verma, J.1. The petitioner is a Post-graduate being M.Sc. in Chemistry and also possession the degree of Ph.D., was employed as a Principal in the regular selection scale in Swami Pranavanand Mahavidhyalaya, Chattarpur which is a registered Educational society under the Societies Registration Act. Respondent No.1 i.e. National Council for Teachers Education (here-in-after referred to as the Council) which is a creature of the statute with the objects to achieve plan and gravity development of the Teachers Education System in the country and to regulate and proper maintenance of norms and standards of the Teachers Education System. The Parliament had enacted National Council of Teachers Education enacted National Council of Teachers Education Act 1993 which was enforced and made effective from 1.7.1995. The council was empowered to frame regulations governing the appointment and conditions of services of the officers and other employees of the council.2. The council respondent No.1 had ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Soni Vs. Deputy Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(NULL)323
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.This appeal by assessee for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 (upto 3-1-1997) is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 3-8-1999.2. The facts in brief, as alleged and revealed from record are that a search under section 32(1) was conducted on 3-1-1997, at the residential premises and business premises of Shri Shree Chand Soni, assessees father. Shri Shree Chand Soni is residence is in the house named 'Kailash Bhawan', belonging to his elder son Ashok Kumar Soni. Shri Shree Chand Soni's residing in that house along with both his sons including Shri Ashok Kumar Soni, the assessee, the eldest son and family. The warrant of search was issued by Director (Inv.) under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 authorising search in the case of Shri Shree Chand Soni and family residing in Kailash Bhawan. During the course of search, statement of Shri Shree Chand Soni (Annexure 1/1 to 1/4 and 2/1 to 2/5) as also of Shri Ashok Kumar...
Tag this Judgment!indrapuri Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN122
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner is Housing Co-operative Society registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 in the year 1970 bearing registration No. 2490L. The aims and objects of the petitioner society are to provide housing accommodation to its member on 'no profit no loss' basis.2. The petitioner society purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 2 measuring 16 bigha 17 biswas situated in village Mahapura/Kukarkheda, Tehsil Jaipur from the Khatedar Shri Ram Singh son of Shri Ishardan Singh Charan through a registered sale deed which was executed on 3.8.1970.3. After purchase of the said land the petitioner society checked out a plan for construction of residential houses over the aforesaid land in accordance with the by-laws and rules made by the erstwhile Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur and the map of plan was also submitted on 28.2.1983 with the U.I.T., Jaipur.4. Thereafter, the petitioner society applied for sanction of sub-division of the aforesaid land and dep...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Singh Shekhawat Vs. Sikar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sika ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1042]; 2001(3)WLC610; 2003(2)WLN368
Keshote, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 4.6.1990 (Annex.3) passed by the Managing Director, Sikar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sikar (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the respondent Bank') whereby the services of the petitioner were brought to an and Further prayer is made for a direction to the respondent Bank to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Chowkidar (Class IV). 2. This writ petition was admitted on 10th of September, 1990. The petitioner also filed stay therein for stay of the operation of the order dated 4.6.1990 (Annex.-3). Notices were issued to the respondents on the stay application returnable on 10.9.1990 (Annex.-3). Notices were issued to the respondents on the stay application returnable on 10.9.90. On 23.4.1991 this Court has been pleased to stay the operation of the order of termination of the services of the petitioner. This i...
Tag this Judgment!Khinv Raj and Party Vs. Municipal Board, Jaisalmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC230; 2001(4)WLN666
Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Ashort issue has been raised. The petitioner was granted licence for retail shops for selling IMKI. under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. Under the said Act the petitioner was required to pay the exclusive privilege price for securing licence to the State Govt. On grant of licence the petitioner was permitted to secure supply of liquor from wholesale dealers or the manufacturers who were licensed to trade in wholesale. The process of payment of exclusive privilege price to the State was to deposit proportionate amount in the Govt. treasury before lifting the liquor from the wholesale outlet at the price fixed for that liquor. 3. The petitioner is a retail dealer and had be bring the liquor within the local limits of the respondent Municipality and on that octroi duty was payable under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 as prescribed under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1962. The octroi duly payable on the liquor b...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Gouri Construction Company and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN139; 2002(3)WLN139
Tat1a, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Cases No. 1 -A/97 and 3-A/96. In Civil Misc. Case No. 1-A/97, an application was filed by the Union of India under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the appellant-Union of India submitted objections against the award dated 25.7.1996 and prayed that the award may be be set aside, whereas in case No. 3-A/96, the respondent No. 1 submitted application under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act and prayed that the award passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 be made rule of the court. Both the above miscellaneous cases were decide by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur by common judgment and decree dated 23.11.1998. The appellant Union of India has challenged the above judgment and decree dated 23.11.1998 by filing two separate appeals involving the same point in controversy, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Labh Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ28; 2002(1)WLC692; 2002(1)WLN545
Hon'ble Garg, J.1. The abovenamed three appeals are being decided by this common judgment as they have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 24.2.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 7/96 by which he convicted accused appellants Labh Singh, Major Singh and Mangal Singh for the offence under Section 8/21,29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'), accused appellant Mohd. Arshad for the offence under Sections 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act and accused appellants Arvinder Singh and Harjeet Singh @ Pappa for the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced them in the following manner:-Name of accused appellantsConvicted under SectionSentence awardedto each accused appellant.1. Labh Singh8/21 of the NDPS ActFifteen years Rl and to pay fine of Rs. one lac. in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months Rl.2. Major Singh3. Mangal Singh29 of the N...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanwar Lal and 10 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC398; 2002(1)WLN519
Sharma, J.1. The appellants were the accused on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Aklera (Distt. Jhalawar) bearing Sessions Case No. 16 of 1996. They were found guilty, convicted and sentence as under-Name of the accused appellantConvicted under SectionSentenced awarded1.Kanwar Lal s/oMohan Lal302/1491PCDeath sentence and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to undergo one year RI)2.Mangilal s/o MohanLal3.Harak Chand @ Harchand s/o KanwarLal4.Pyarji s/o KanwarLal148 IPCOne year RI and fineof Rs. 1000/- (in default to further undergo one months RI)5.Gangaram s/p Ram Ratan6.Hari Singh s/oRam Ratan7.Sheo Singh s/o Ram Ratan8.Chhitar s/o HariKishanThree months RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in defaultto further undergo one month RI)9.Nenu Lal s/oIssar10.Chhitar s/o MangiLal11.Shyam Lal s/o AmarSingh325/149 IPCFive years RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in defaultto further undergo one month RI)323/149 IPCSix months RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in defaultto further undergo one month RI)12.Har...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its C.G.S.C.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN258
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Heard. Perused the statements of the witnesses and also the record available.2. Learned counsel for Union of India opposes the bail application.3. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel inclined to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.4. I, therefore, accept this bail application and order that accused applicant Arjun Singh S/o Shir Bhanwar Singh shall be released on bail provided he executes his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so till the completion of the trial....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »