Rajasthan Court February 2002 Judgments
Karni Dan Vs. Raj. Civil Service Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj413; 2002(3)WLC263; 2002(3)WLN678
Chauhan, J.1. Shri Hemant Choudhary was directed to take notice on behalf of the respondent department and he was served copy of the petition and learned counsel for the parties were heard.2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.5.2000 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal by which the order of compulsory retirement dated 1.12,1997 has been set aside but back-wages had not been given.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that present petitioner was a Patwari in the Colonisation Department and he had been compulsorily retired vide order dated 1.12.1997. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal only on the ground that the order dated 1.12.1997 compulsorily retiring the petitioner-appellant was passed under the provisions of Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1951') though the said Rules had been repelled by the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Satpal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1469; 2002(4)WLC184
Goyal, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 1.8.2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar, whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 341 IPC with one month simple imprisonment, under Section 323 IPC with six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further undergo two months imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that P.W.1 Smt.Hema Devi wife of the deceased Roopa Ram submitted a typed report dated 8.2.2001 (Ex.P/1), to the S.H.O. Police Station, Raghunathgarh, District Sikar, on 9.2.2001 at 8.50 a.m. with the averments that around 1.30/2.00 p.m. on February 2, 2001, her husband Roopa Ram went to the house of his ailing brother Sukhdeva. The moment, Roopa Ram was to enter the house, accused appellant Satpal and his wife Banarasi Devi started beating him with lathi resulting into injuries on his head an...
Tag this Judgment!Saudan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4816; 2002(3)WLC275
ORDERKhem Chand Sharma, J.1. Accused-appellants Saudan and Lalu have preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 17-6-2000 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Ramganjmandi, Kota, whereby the learned special Judge has found the accused-appellants guilty of having committed offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and accordingly, convicted both of them for the said offence and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. one lac each, in default there of, each to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are summarised as follow :During night intervening 1 -11 -99 and 2-11-99, P.W. 7 Badri Lal, Sub-Inspector along with his team, while on patrolling duty, found the appellants sitting on the road near Kamalpura at about 4.00 a.m. who were havin...
Tag this Judgment!Nemi Chand and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC92; 2003(3)WLN185
M.R. Calla, J.1. These three appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 3.8.1999 whereby three writ petitions being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3792/95, 680/96, 6092/96 were decided. The learned Single Judge had allowed the claim of disability pension in first two cases i.e. Nemi Chand v. U.O.I. and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3792/95 and Surendra Singh v. U.O.I and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6080/96 and has narrated that while determining the disability pension of these two petitioners they be paid arrears of such pension for only 3 years prior to filing of the writ petition i.e. from the date of discharge till prior to 3 years of filing of writ petition the petitioners would not be entitled to any arrears of pension. The third matter i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6092/1996, Guman Singh v. UOI and Ors., has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay.2. Since the common questions of law are involved in these matters, we ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3687
Sharma, J. 1. Three appellants, namely, Mangi Lal, Banwari Lal and Hukam Singh have preferred separate appeals against the judgment and order dated 24.6.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bandikui, district Dausa, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellants under Section 376(2) IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 15000/- each, in default thereof, each was ordered to undergo three months imprisonment. Appellant Hukam Singh was further convicted under Section 392 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. The sentences awarded to accused Hukam Singh were ordered to run concurrently. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being heard and decided by a common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR283]; 2002(2)WLC575
Madan, J. 1. The State has come up by way of this writ petition challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Kota dated 21.11.1996 (Ann. 3) on the ground inter alia that as per the claim statement filed by respondent No. 1 workman, he was employed with the petitioner-Forest Department, Kota with effect from 1.4.1985 and was deputed to work under respondent No.2. He has worked in Nursery Jalwara and Plantation Bajranggarh as Cattle Guard under petitioner No.2 Regional Forest Officer Kishanganj (Kota). He was removed from the services of petitioner No.2 at the behest of petitioner No. 1.2. In his claim statement, the workman had averred that he had worked continuously from 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1989 and had completed more than 240 days of service.3. In reply to the claim statement, it was admitted that the respondent-workman worked at Jalwara and Bajranggarh on the post of Cattle Guard but he left the services of the department voluntarily with effect from 1.3.87 and never reported back to duty...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sardar Harnam Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR591(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 19,837 (for the assessment year 1973-74) Rs. 11,570 (for the assessment year 1974-75) levied under Section 18(1)(a) ?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The case of the assessee is that he had bona fide belief that he did not have deductible wealth, therefore, he could not file the return on the higher value of the assets and also disallowing some liabilities. He had belief that those liabilities are deductible for the purpose of the wealth-tax, therefore, he could not file this return in time. The Tribunal has discussed this in its order. The relevant facts to the issue which have been reproduced in the statement of the case read as under.'The assessee has repeated the same arguments before ...
Tag this Judgment!Forest Friendly Camps Private Ltd., Sherpur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Raj214; 2001(2)WLC119
Naolekar, J. 1. Appellant Forest Friendly Camps Private Limited is the owner of hotels and is running the business of arranging tours of the tourists from all over the country and the world. The State of Rajasthan has established a Tiger Project in the vicinity of Ranthambore National Park with a view to attract the tourists of the country and the world to see the tigers in the sanctuary. Upto 1997 any person was entitled to enter or reside in the Park area for the purpose, inter alia, of tourism by merely obtaining permit on payment of prescribed fees. There was no restriction on the entry of vehicles but there was regulation. During this period, the Government of Rajasthan as also the Central Government encouraged eco tourism and helped in setting up of various hotels and resorts around the Park area. Consequently, many hotels and resorts have been set up nearby the Park area. 2. The Government of Rajasthan under the Wild Life (Protection) (Rajasthan) Rules, 1977 (for short, 'the Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Mohammad Abdul Rahim Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC587
Sharma, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in the instant matter relates to interpretation of Rule 26 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short, 1960 Rules).2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner submitted an application on November 21, 1988 for renewal of mining lease of mineral Garnet for an area of 56.1164hactares near village Devkheda, Tehsil Deoli, Distt. Tonk (Rajasthan). The said application was rejected by the State Government vide order dated December 29, 1990 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce required documents such as certificates of income tax clearance, no dues, undertaking regarding approved plan etc. The petitioner filed revision petition against the said order before the Central Government, that was dismissed vide order dated July 14, 1993. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking quashing of the aforequoted orders.3. Before considering rival submissions, it will be appropriate to incorporate the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC781; 2002(2)WLN648
Garg, J.1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused pelitioners with a prayer that FIR No. 189/97 of the Police Station Pipar City, Dist. Jodhpur may be quashed.2. It arises in the, following circumstances:(i) One Himmat Singh, respondent No. 2 (complainant) filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Pipar on 19.7.97 stating that on 29.6.97 his brother Rajendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was in truck No. RJ-19-G/5367 and when he was alighting from the truck through 'Fatak', at that time Raja Ram, Babu Lal and Ranjeet Singh filed on him and the shot which was fired by Babulal hit the deceased and thereafter Surendra Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Sattu Singh put him on the ground and he was further beaten by Madho Ram and Kalu Singh. Thereafter the deceased died. It was further stated 4n the report that the fire which was alleged to have been made by Meghraj, ASI hit the mudguard of the truck.3. That on 19.7.97, the complaint was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »