Rajasthan Court December 2002 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Govind Ram Bagdiya and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1169
ORDERO.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed in respect of a judgment of acquittal delivered by the Special Court created under Anti-Corruption Act, Bikaner. The respondents Govind Ram Bagdiya (Administrator, Municipal Board, Ganganagar), D. R. Kalla, Assistant Engineer, Charan Singh, Draughtsman and Mahaveer Prashad, LDC, Municipal Board, Ganganagar were charged for the offences punishable under Section 13 of the Anti-Corruption Act and Section 420 of the IPC. Pawan Kumar and Smt. Neelam were charged under Section 13 of the Anti-Corruption Act and Sections 109, 120 and 120-B of the IPC. The trial resulted in acquittal. Pawan Kumar and Smt. Neelam have their houses situate in the township of Ganganagar and both applied for allotment of land adjoining their respective houses. Ultimately land measuring 25 x 36 sq. ft. was allotted to each one of them as strip of land. Certain persons of the locality lodged a complaint and ultimately a case was registered which...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Pathak Vs. Jai NaraIn Vyas University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC593; 2003(1)WLN152
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The petitioner in this writ, petition claims that he was appointed as Asst. Professor on 03.07.1970 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Reader (Associate Professor) on 25.09.1987 and at present, he is Head of the Department of English.2. The respondent University started an exercise by virtue of which it had come out that promotions will be made under Career Advancement Scheme. Two teachers of the English Department, i.e. Dr. Mrs. Sudhi Rajiv and Dr. Anand Singh Jasol were called for interview which were held on 24.09.2001.3. The claim of the petitioner is that he had acquired an experience of 34 years of teaching. He has discharged the duties as Reader (Associate Professor) for 14 years. None of the persons working in the Department of English, in the respondent University, has that much of experience. The petitioner has also submitted his Ph.D. thesis and claims that Ex. 3 is a certificate issued by his research guide. The petitioner claims, that U.G....
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. R.C. Misra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj155; 2003(1)WLN371
Balia, J.1. A Division Bench of this court consisting of Hon'ble Justice M.R. Calla and Hon'ble Justice Shashikant Sharma vide its order dated 24.11.2001/3.1.2002 ordered for placing these cases before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for consideration of the following two questions:1. Whether the judgment dated 13.12.2001 has a binding effect as a part of the law of precedent or not?2. Whether the right to file intra court appeals stands abrogated with the Repealing Act coming into force on 29.8.2001 by which the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 was repealed notwithstanding the several other existing provisions preserving the powers of the High Court in the matter of administration of justice as contained in Article 225 of the Constitution read with Sections 52, 54 & 57 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956?The aforementioned two questions have been referred for determination to as under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court.....7. Thereaft...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vimla Vs. Firm Vinod Kumar Brij Mohan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj157
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The respondent No. 1 is a firm and decree-holder and one of its partners respondent No. 2 has been served and represented by his counsel. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the notice on respondents No. 3 and 4 need not be awaited and their service is disposed with. The petitioners who are legal representatives of the objector Vimla Devi against the execution of decree against her husband and her husband's brother who are partners of the firm Ms. Liladhar Rathi and others impleading its partners Kanhaiyalal and two brothers Om Prakash and Mahabir Prasad.3. The original suit No. 80/2002 was filed for recovery on 26-7-1980 and the decree was passed against the firm on 20-11-1984. In pursuance thereof, the execution was laid by the decree holders against the property in question bringing it to sale.4. During the execution proceedings Smt. Vimla Devi wife of Kanhaiyalal one of the Judgment-debtors filed objections alleging that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sagat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2124; 2003(2)WLC524; 2003(1)WLN194
Panwar, J.1. By this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.4.1997 passed by the learned Judl. Magistrate, Ist Class, District Jodhpur whereby the learned Judl. Magistrate took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 435 read with Section 149, IPC against the petitioners.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned dated 24.4.1997 and the relevant material filed by the police before the Court below.3. On 24.9.1996, Police Station Jhanwar (District Jodhpur) registered first information report No. 146 for offences under Sections 143, 447 and 435, IPC on the basis of statement of non- petitioner No. 2 Purkharam-compfainant. It was alleged that the complainant is in possessions of agricultural field bearing khasra No. 926, measuring 14 bigha. It was further alleged that in the said field crop was standing and it has been taken away by the present petitioners. However, th...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Stores Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Raj)592
Jagat Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner M/s Laxmi Stores, Udaipur carries on business as dealer of cigarettes at Udaipur. A search of the petitioner-firm was conducted on 9th Jan., 1986 by the authorities of the respondent-Department, in which certain incriminating record was seized relating to charging of 'premium on money' from the retailers. The petitioner-firm had not paid any tax on the above amount nor had shown that income in their return for the asst. yrs. 1985-86, 1986-87, therefore, not only penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed against the petitioner but prosecution under Section 276C of the IT Act was also sanctioned vide orders Annexs. 11 and 12 dt. 8th Feb., 1990. Accordingly, complaint Annex. 13 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur. Hence this petition.This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, on 22nd Feb., 1991, stayed the prosecution proceedings referred above.3. Learn...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Stores Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN258(Raj)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner M/s. Laxmi Stores, Udaipur carries on business as dealer of cigarettes at Udaipur. A search of the petitioner-firm was conducted on 9-1-1986 by the authorities of the respondent-department, in which certain incriminating record was seized relating to charging of 'premium/on money' from the retailers. The petitioner-firm had not paid any tax on the above amount nor had shown that income in their return for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87, therefore, not only penalty under, section 271(1)(c) was imposed against the petitioner but prosecution under section 276C of the Income Tax Act was also sanctioned vide orders Annexures 11 and 12 dated 8-2-1990. Accordingly, complaint Annexures 13 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur. Hence this petition.This court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, on 22-2-1991, stayed the prosecution proceedings referred above.3. Learned counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Vraj Tractors Industries Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN621
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner. The petitioner purchased the property in question at an auction held on 21,3.1990 by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. After the petitioner had obtained possession of the property, the first demand, which the petitioner received from the respondent District Industry Centre, was dated 9.4.1991 calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount due to District Industry Centre, Jodhpur, which was due to M/s. Jodhpur Auto Agric Products as the property purchased by the petitioner was subject to second charge in favour of the Centre, for the loan of margin money advanced to M/s. Jodhpur Auto Agric Products whose property the petitioner has purchased at auction conducted by the Rajasthan State Financial Corporation as aforesaid.3. The petitioner disputed his liability to pay that amount on the ground that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. B.K. Traders
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2004]138STC614(Raj)
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board as also the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) at Jaipur, who have been pleased to set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent-trader which had been levied by the Assessing Officer alleging dishonest intention and evasion of sales tax for the transaction of sale of certain quantity of mustard oil tanks. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty presuming that the respondent-trader is guilty of evasion of sales tax on the sale of the aforesaid oil-tanks since there were cuttings on the bilty indicating that the goods initially were to be dispatched to Indore in Madhya Pradesh but it was then cut out and was shown to have been dispatched to Orissa. Another allegation was that the respondent-trader had transported these oil tanks by not taking the usual route and had taken a different route for transporting these goods which was not the normal route. From these two circumstances, it was infe...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Lal Chadha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ49(Raj)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel.2. Through this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction for declaration of Rules 24 and 41(1) of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 as irrational, ultra vires, illegal, irrelevant, contrary and without any nexus to other pension rules; that the orders Annexures 1 and 4 be quashed and set aside; and the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner all the pensionary benefits for the period for which his service was satisfactory. Not only that, the petitioner has also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sums due from the date of the same fell due to the date of actual payment.3. The facts of the case, as have been narrated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, depict illustrious litigious perseverance of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein, who was working as Senior Store Superintendent in the Indian Air Force, was subjected to an enquiry and on the basis of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »