Rajasthan Court February 2002 Judgments
Manorma Meena and anr. Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR529]; (2002)IIILLJ118Raj; 2002WLC(Raj)UC461
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.2. The appellants are seekers of employment with the respondent Bank on compassionate ground. It is not in dispute that the incumbent, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2, had died in 1985 after serving the respondent Bank for about 7 years. The writ petition for seeking compassionate appointment has been filed in 2001 after about 16 years and at the time when Ram Singh Meena died the appellant No. 1, who was immediately entitled to be appointed as a widow of deceased Ram Singh herself was 27 years of age. In these circumstances, the learned single Judge of this Court has not entertained the petition and in our opinion rightly so, for keeping open the door for such long period when need for providing immediate succor in the hour of calamity was over is not the purpose of giving appointment on compassionate ground which is an exception to general rule ot employment through regular recruitment procedure.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Sawaimadhopur and Tonk Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. and anr. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR811]; (2002)IILLJ1013Raj
M.R. Calla, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated November 2, 2001. The respondent-workman was appointed with the appellant establishment initially on daily wages basis on October 1, 1977. While he was working on daily wages since October 1, 1977, the appointment was given to him on September 21, 1983 at the chilling plant centre of Sawaimadhopur and Tonk Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. for three months but he was allowed to continue in service until he was terminated by order dated May 10, 1984 w.e.f. May 12, 1984. Thus, he was retrenched from the service without complying with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. On dispute being raised in the year 1991, reference was made to the Labour Court, Bharatpur in January 1992. The Labour Court adjudicated the dispute and has held that there was a clear cut violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as no retrenchment benefits were paid to...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Kota Sales Corpn.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: [2003]126TAXMAN178(Raj)
ORDEROn an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion.'Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 40% and not 30% on the Trucks used by it for its business ?'The assessee firm derives its income from purchase and sales of stone. It has also got mines and trucks for transportation. It claimed 40% depreciation on the trucks before the assessing officer. The assessing officer has allowed only 30% depreciation.None appeared for the assessee. Learned counsel for the revenue brought to our notice that similar issue has been considered by this court in the case of CIT v. Sardar Stones (1995) 215 ITR 350, wherein the view has been taken that trucks are entitled for depreciation at the rate of 30% only.Following our view taken by this court in the case of Sardar Stones (supra), we answer the ques...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Chand and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN215
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In Writ Petitions No. 163/2002 and 4126/2000, Notification of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 dated 18.8.2000 published in Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 18th August, 2000 has been challenged.2. This Notification has come as a result of orders passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 637/97 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 639/97 which arose out of Writ Petition No. 2959/96 a public interest litigation filed by Union of India.3. Union of India raised grievance against the State of Rajasthan and others as a public interest litigation, because it found that subjecting the area around the railway track from Makrana-Parbatsar to mining operations by the operators to whom mining lease has been granted by State of Rajasthan was endangering the safety of railway operations on that track. Due to mining operations in the surrounding areas, the railway track was in danger of being exposed to hanging in the air. Apart from the State authorities, a l...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN583
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.1.2001 by which the trial Court has directed the concerned Police Station in-charge to get the injured complainant Tejpal Medically Examined from the Government Hospital, Neem Ka Thana, and place the report of the same on record.2. The only contention, as raised on behalf of the petitioners, has been that after three months the Medical Officer may not give correct report in regard to injuries sustained by petitioner No. 2 three months back. The apprehension of the petitioners has been that because of the fresh Medical Examination, the accused-respondent may get spot free.3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the apprehension of the petitioners is wholly misconceived and uncalled for. It is for the trial Court to consider the entire evidence at the appropriate stage. I find no ground for any interference of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Co ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC524
Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner in the instant writ of mandamus has sought the following relief-(a) declare that in view of the various Sugar Control Orders promulgated by the Central Legislation or the State Legislation pursuant to the Act of 1955 the Act of 1961 protanto gets excluded so far as the transaction of purchase and sale of sugar cane in the market area is concerned and consequently, the Act of 1961 is not applicable and no market fee can be demanded by the respondent No. 1 from the petitioner. (b) declare that the respondent No. 1 has no authority and/or jurisdiction to demand, levy and collect any market fee from the petitioner on the sale of sugar. (c) to restrain the respondent No. 1 from demanding, levying and collecting any market fee from the petitioner. (d) to direct the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 142 lacs which it has collected illegally from the petitioner company. 2. It has been averred in the writ petition that the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing...
Tag this Judgment!Nemi Chand Kajala Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC526
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ of mandamus seeks following relief.(i) the Selection of respondent No.3 for distribution of Petroleum Products at Village Palsana Distt. Sikar be quashed and set aside.(ii) The respondents 1 and 2 be directed to award Petroleum Dealership relating to village Palsana in pursuance to advertisement (An-nexure-1) to the petitioner.2. The facts as depict in the writ petition are as under-(a) the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short HPCL) invited applications under the Open General Category from eligible persons for appointment of dealership of Retail Outlet for the village Palsana in Sikar District. As per Clause (e) of the said advertisement income of the candidate for the financial year 1996-97 was not to exceed Rs. 2.00 lacs per annum.(b) The petitioner applied for allotment of the aforequoted dealership of Retail Outlet and was called for interview which was held on August 21, 2001. The name of the petitioner figure...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Brij Lal Prabhu Dayal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC67; 2003(2)WLN298
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 27th January, 1999 rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sriganganagar, in Civil Reference No. 155/93 Brijlal, Prabhudayal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., on 2nd April, 1998.3. The controversy arose in the following facts and circumstances. By a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Govt. of Rajasthan on 29th September, 1989 made known its intention to acquire 5044 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land, which included the land of the respondents, which is situated in Ganganagar District. The land is sought to be acquired for Union of India. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6(4) and direction under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 were issued o...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Balwant Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj56; 2002(2)WLC759
Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition sought the following prayer: (i) directing the respondents 2, 3 and 4 to accord to the petitioner interest at the rate of 10% per annum on his deposit made under the Scheme w.e.f. 1.1.1999 by making payment of remaining 1% interest on the deposited amount as also interest on the unpaid interest amount 1% be paid @ 18 p.a. with effect from 1.1.1999.(ii) directing respondent No.2 to continue to make payment of interest to the petitioner on the deposit 10% p.a. as long as the deposit continues with respondent No.4.(iii) declaring the notification dated 1.1.1999 (Annexure- 5) to be illegal/unsustainable/not applicable to the deposits made prior to 1.1.1999.2. Brief facts of the case are as under:(a) The petitioner is retired Director General of Rajasthan. The Government of India notified deposit scheme for Retiring Government Employees, 1989 (in short 1989 Scheme) vide Notification dated June 7, 1989. As per the terms of the 1989 Sc...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC720; 2002(5)WLN577
Madan, J. 1. In second inning of his legal battle the petitioner has challenged impugned orders dt.13.1.94 (Annex.4) dismissing him from service for the misconduct and which has been affirmed in his appeal by order dt.29.7.94 (Annex,6). 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 1.12.1973 by the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) Jaipur and later on was transferred to the office of S.P. Sikar in January, 1987. During his posting as Constable in Treasury Guard, Sikar on 12.5.91; as per charge sheet dated 21.8.91, the petitioner is alleged to have left place of his duty (Treasury Guard) alongwith a register but in a drunkard condition had proceeded to the office of S.P. Sikar alongwith his rifle, inasmuch as he ill-behaved with officials deployed in election duty in his drunkard state on the way and thereafter entered in the chambers of the S.P. The charge-sheet is said to have been served on 24.8.91 and where a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »