Rajasthan Court September 2001 Judgments
Smt. Kamlesh Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC299
Verma, J.1. The petitioner is widow of Late Shri Vishnu Kumar Mathur. Said Vishnu Kumar Mathur there-in-after called deceased husband) was serving in the Commercial Taxes Department as Clerk and after serving about 20 years had expired on 6.7.1998. The petitioner being dependent of the deceased husband had applied for appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short the Rules) attaching therein all the necessary documents including educational documents. The petitioner has passed Higher Secondary Part I Examination in the year 1970 from the Board of SecondaryEducation, Rajasthan, Ajmer vide certificate Annexure-2. She had also attached a letter Annexure-3 issued by the State of Rajasthan providing that the 1st year of two years Higher Secondary Course is equivalent to Matriculation Examination. The respondent issued an appointment letter dated 30.11.1998 in favour of the petitioner with the condition that the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Behari Lal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR398]; 2002(1)WLC752; 2002(5)WLN399
Verma, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the order of removal dated 24.5.1995 (Annexure-6) and all consequential orders.2. The petitioner who was initially appointed in the year 1971 as Civil Assistant Surgeon is qualified as M.S. (Gynaecology). He was promoted as Junior Specialist in 1987. When he was posted at Postmortem Centre Sambherlake, District Jaipur, he was served with a charge-sheet on 3.1.1995 calling him to submit his reply or defence. He had asked for inspection of the documents. He was charge-sheeted for wilful absence from duty from 2.10.92 to 5.8.1993 when he was posted at Post-mortem Centre Taranagar District Chum. Charge-Sheets have been attached as Annexures-1 and 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had approached the department for supply of certain documents vide Annex-3, but he had received no response despite his repeated reminders, copies of which have been attached with the writ petition.3. According to the petitioner he was transferred from Health C...
Tag this Judgment!Gokul and ors. Vs. Durgalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj367; 2002(2)WLC215; 2002(4)WLN288
Madan, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against an order dt. 16.11.1994 in Civil Suit No. 151/92 deciding a preliminary issue relating to valuation of suit against the defendants.2. Plaintiffs Durgalal and Kailash instituted a suit for cancellation of a decree passed by the Additional City Magistrate No. 2 Took in a case No. 554/77, on the assertions that the land in dispute was in khatedari of plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 & 2) and Devilal, defendant No. 6 who had filed a suit before the ACM No. 2 Tonk against defendant Nos. 1 to 5 (present petitioners). It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that though the defendant No. 6 filed suit before the ACM in the name of plaintiffs but the plaint was not signed by the present plaintiffs; and since defendant No.6 Devilal entered into a compromise on 16.7.83 before the ACM who was requested to decide the suit on the basis of compromise and on which, suit No. 554/97 was decreed on 25.7.83 by the ACM Tonk in the terms of the comprom...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash and ors. Vs. Sriram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN543
Madan, J.1. Though this revision petition came up for orders on the respondents' application for vacation of ex parte stay order dt. 8.7.97 but, this revision petition haying been pending since 1997 at the joint request of both the parties the matter was heard as to the maintainability of the revision petition itself.2. By this revision petition having been filed by the defendants the order dt. 9.8-88 of the learned Munsif Srimadhopur in Civil Misc. Case No. 25/77, dismissing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by Om Prakash, Suja Devi and Geeta Devi (defendants) which stood confirmed by the appellate court (ADJ Neemkathana) in CMA No. 36/88, has been challenged.3. The facts in brief are that plaintiff (respondent) instituted a suit for permanent injunction on 19.9.1972 against the petitioners so also other defendants' (proforma respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein. Admittedly, all the defendants are brothers, sister and mother having been living together at Srimadhopur. The injuncti...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN236; 2002(3)WLN236
Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.12.924 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant.2. Brief facts, which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that on 27.10.1987 the appellant was travelling in a bus owned by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter for short 'the Corporation') from Chittorgarh to Fatehnagar. It was averred that while the said bus was plying from Chittorgarh to Fatehnagur in the area of Kakarava at about 6.30 to 7 p.m., a truck came from opposite direction. It was averred that the driver of the Corporation bus did not leave sufficient space while crossing the truck coming from opposite direction and crossed the bus so close to the said truck that the body of the bus and the truck grazed with each other and the appellant, who was near to window of the bus, sustained injury...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Lal and anr. Vs. Smt. Sunanda Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1970; 2002(1)WLN610
Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.12.92 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of respondent-claimants No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against the appellants and respondent No. 4. However, the Tribunal held that the liability of respondent No. 4 the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sriganganagar (hereinafter for short 'the insurer') was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and the appellants were held liable for the amount beyond Rs. 50,000/-.2. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, the appellants, who are owner and driver of jeep No. RRT 3671 involved in the accident, filed this appeal.3. Brief facts of the case, which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that on 26.11.86 deceased B.N. Mane, an employee of Military was proceeding on a motor cycle ahead of military convoy from Bikane...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR153(Raj)
H.R. Panwar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.04.1998 passed by learned District Judge, Jodhpur in Arbitration Case No. 2A/1998 whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance of 1996')-2. I heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and the record.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was granted contract Agreement No. 4/EE/ICD/94-95 by the respondents for construction of CPWD Office Building and Inspection Bungalow Building at Jodhpur. He submitted that after the payment of final bill, certain items remained undecided for which a dispute arose, which was required to be decided by the arbitrator, therefore, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Ordinance of 1996 before the learned Trial Court seeking for appointment of arbitrator. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Bachhu Lal Vs. Dy. Conservator-forest and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ112Raj; 2003(1)WLN552
Sharma, J.1. The only question arises for our consideration in the instant Special Appeal is as to under what circumstances, a workman, in the event of reinstatement of his services, is entitled to the back wages and continuity of past services?2. Brief resume of the facts is that while answering the reference, the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur, vide its Award dated October 17, 1994, ordered that the termination of services of the appellant-workman, by the respondent was illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated in the service along with entire back wages from the date of his termination till the date of reinstatement in the service. Undeniably, the Award of the Labour Court was based on the uncontroverted testimony of the workman as the respondent did not adduce any evidence in support of his reply.3. Award of learned Labour Court was assailed by the respondent by filing writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court. Learned Single Judge, vide order dated March 10, ...
Tag this Judgment!Marwar GramIn Bank and anr. Vs. Suresh Chandra Joshi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC584; 2002(4)WLN170
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-petitioner was in the service of the appellant Bank since he joined in pursuance of appointment letter dated 15th Jan., 1981 was issued to him. On 14.6.82, the said incumbent submitted the letter of resignation informing the appellant that he has been selected by the Life Insurance Corporation as a Development Officer so he is resigning from the service of the Bank with immediate effect. As a parting pleasantry, he also made a request that in case he is not satisfied with his new job he may be given a new appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the services of the Life Insurance Corporation on 16.6.82. The petitioner-respondent received a letter dated 10.6.83 (Ex.7) from the Bank stating that his resignation dated 14.6.82 has not been accepted by the employer and, therefore, he is being treated as absent from duty since 14.6.82. He was called upon the report on duty with a stipulation...
Tag this Judgment!Jabar Mal Dugar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: [2001]258ITR286(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee, and Mr. L.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the Revenue.This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the order of the Income-tax Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur rejecting the Reference Application No. 117/JP of 1990 dated January 24, 1991, pertaining to the assessment year 1982-83 refusing to refer the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 484JP of 1986 dated February 15, 1990 :'(1) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of interest on estate duty refund of the late Shri Budhmal Dugar as not a capital receipt but as a revenue receipt liable to income-tax for the assessment year 1982-83 ? (2) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of interest is not to be spread over the year of payment to the date of actual refund of estate duty but is liable to be ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »