Rajasthan Court December 2002 Judgments
Sunder Das T. Anjani Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)WLC94; 2003(3)WLN230
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner while serving as Upper Division Clerk in the Board of Revenue was convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC by learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 29.6.1981 that was ultimately confirmed by the Supreme Court on 22.8.1991. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation was retired on 31.10.1987 and till retirement the petitioner remained under suspension and was regularly paid subsistence allowance. After about 10 years of retirement i.e. on 10.9.1997 respondent Board of Revenue passed and order terminating the service of the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. 29.6.1981.2. In the instant writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the said order dated 10.9.1997 with a further prayer to allow him the benefits of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits.3. The respondents submitted return to the writ petition stating therein that the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated retrospectively and he was not entitled to reti...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Nahar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)347
1. This special appeal is directed against the interim order of the learned Single Judge, dt. 26th Nov., 2002.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14th Aug., 2002, the police seized cash of Rs. 21 lacs from the respondent No. 1 Ashok Kumar Nahar. He was arrested and released on bail. The amount was seized in accordance with the provisions of 102, Cr.PC. The IT Department obtained a warrant under Section 132A of the Act. The learned Magistrate passed an order directing the police to hand over the entire amount to the IT Department. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Various contentions have been raised before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition has been admitted and is posted for final hearing. By interim order the learned Single Judge has directed the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, to release the entire amount except 30 per cent of the disputed amount on furnis...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1459; 2003(2)WLC581
Garg, J.1. Both the above mentioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them identical questions of law and facts are involved. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2117/19912. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 27.4.1991 against the respondents with, the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to treat the qualification of M.D. in Pathology possessed by the petitioner as the requisite qualification, as per Notification Annex.P/15 dated 29.12.1987 by which amendment in Schedule-I appended to the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1962') was made, for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in the Forensic Medicine till the facility of M.D. in Forensic Medicines is available in any of the Colleges in the State of Rajasthan, with all consequential benefits and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Suman Soni Vs. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC327; 2003(1)WLN492
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 16.9.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 9.9.2002 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 1 Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer (for short 'University') by which the LL.B. Second Year Examination-2002 of the petitioner conducted by the respondent No. 1 University was cancelled and furthermore, the petitioner was debarred from appearing in any examination of the respondent No. 1 University for the year 2003, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows:The petitioner was admitted in the course of LL.B. Ist year in Lohiya College, Churu for the educational session 2000-2001. The petitioner was to appear in LL.B. First Year Examination, which was sought to be commenced from 16.4.2001. The petitioner, on 9.4.2001, app...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1454; 2003(2)WLC63
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. This revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 21-12-2001, by which the learned trial Court has framed charges against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/ 306 read with Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 7-9-95, applicant Lala Ram lodged an FIR in the Police Station that his wife Smt. Dushyant Kaur had committed suicide by hanging herself. The matter was investigated and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barmer, also, conducted an inquiry of the unnatural death and a case was registered against the applicant. The Judicial Magistrate. Barmer, vide order dated 9-1-98, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, IPC against the applicant, considering the evidence on record and observing that prima facie there was evidence against him. Now, charges have been framed against the applicant vide impugned order, as me...
Tag this Judgment!Umrao Vs. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR314]; (2003)ILLJ979Raj; 2003(2)WLC309
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on February 11, 1992 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated January 9, 1992 (Annexure 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) by which the learned Authority (respondent No. 1) came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) had made the payment to the petitioner and therefore, dropped the recovery proceedings, be quashed and set aside.2. The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under:(i) That the petitioner was under the employment of respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) since last so many years.(ii) That since the respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) did not make payment of wages to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner moved an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1936) before the authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. P.O., Central Government Industri ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ198Raj; 2003(2)WLC647
Arun Madan, J.1. Bank of Baroda (petitioner) has preferred this writ petition assailing an Award dated January 6, 2000 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in CGIT/B-1 5/98 whereby the Tribunal held the termination of respondent No. 2 (Aaram Saini) dated September 8, 1992 as illegal and thus, quashed the termination holding the employee entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages besides treating him in service without break.2. The undisputed facts are that an industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 2 which was referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal in following term of reference -'Whether the action of the Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur is justified in terminating the service of respondent No. 2 Aaram Saini s/o Gangaram Saini part time peon with effect from September 08, 1992: If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?'3. In his cl...
Tag this Judgment!Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissio ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Raj)461
K.S. RATHORE, J1. Learned counsel for both the parties agree that these 10 writ petitions may be heard together and finally disposed of at this stage.2. On behalf of respondents, Mr. J.K. Singhi raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of these petitions and the arguments heard on the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions.3. Since these 10 writ petitions are directed against the show-cause notices issued on various dates by the Asstt. CIT, Circle 1, Jaipur, pertain to the petitioner's company, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.4. As a leading case, the facts of Writ Petn. No. 1149 of 2002 (Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT) are being taken for disposal of these 10 writ petitions.Petitioner is a private limited company and engaged in production/manufacture and sale of soapstone powder for the last several years. Soapstone is a massive, soft, greenish talcose rock, with a high percenta...
Tag this Judgment!Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN174(Raj)
ORDERLearned counsel for both the parties agree that these 10 writ petitions may be heard together and finally disposed of at this stage.2. On behalf of respondents Mr. J.K. Singhi raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of these petitions and the arguments heard on the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions.3. Since these 10 writ petitions are directed against the show-cause notices issued on various dates by the Assistant Commissioner, Circle 1, Jaipur pertains to the petitioners company, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.4. As a leading case the facts of Writ Petition No. 1149 of 2002 (Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT) is being taken for disposal of these 10 writ petitions.5. Petitioner is a Private Limited Company and engaged in production/manufacture and sale of soapstone powder for the last several years. Soapstone is a massive, soft, greenish talcose rock, with a high percent...
Tag this Judgment!Himmat Singh Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)WLC155; 2003(1)WLN185
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of Collectorate, Dungarpur, was placed under suspension during departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules'). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dungarpur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The chargesheet dated 27th Dec., 1985 was served but the same was withdrawn by order dated 1st Sept., 1986 in compliance of the Department of Personnel's letter dated 7th August, 1986 whereby a joint enquiry against Shri Shree Nath Sharma, District Supply Officer, Dungarpur and the petitioner was ordered. The memo dated 16th Feb., 1987 was served upon the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner as well as Shri Shree Nath Sharma are from page No. 89 of the paper book whereas charges levelled against the petitioner are from page No. 91 to 93 of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »