Rajasthan Court March 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Choudhary Motors Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(NULL)16
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.As the above appeals and C.O. are interrelated and involve common points so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 2676/Jp/1994 is an appeal by assessee for assessment year 1990-91 and directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 21-10-1994.3. ITA No. 452/Jdpr/1998 is an appeal by revenue for assessment year 1990-91 and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 15-7-1998.4. C. O. No. 70/Jp/1998 is the C. O. of assessee related to ITA No. 452/Jdpr/1998 being for assessment year 1990-91.5. The assessee's appeal being ITA No. 2676/Jp/1994 and assessee's C.O. being 70/Jp/1998 have not been pressed by the learned authorised representative of assessee during arguments and so the same are dismissed accordingly.6. Now it is only the revenue's appeal being ITA No. 452/Jdpr/1998 which remains to be considered and decided on merits by us.7. We have heard the arguments of both...
Jeevan Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN508
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the order dated 7.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 41/99 by which he rejected the application filed by the complainant Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by which he prayed that cognizance for offence Under Section 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. be further taken against the respondents Kama Ram, Smt. Chothi and Mohan Ram as additional accused.2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) On the report of complainant-petitioner which was filed on 14.6.1999 in the Police Station Nokha, Distt. Bikaner, a challan was filed against Asu Ram, Tulchha Ram and Rakma Devi for offence Under Section 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. about the dowry death of Smt. Durga.3. When the trial of that case was going on, an, application Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by P.P. with a prayer that respondents No.2 to 4, namely, Kama Ram, Smt. Chothi and Mohan Ram be further add...
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. General Manager, Western Railway and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC193; 2002(3)WLN689
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Abu Road, Sirohi dated 21.11.2001 allowing the appeal of the respondents Railways against the order dated 17.9.2001 passed by the trial court granting interim relief Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the revisionist filed a suit on 8.8.2001 for permanent injunction along with an application Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code praying that the respondents-defendants be restrained from dispossessing the revisionist from the land in dispute which it uses as a bus stand for picking up and setting down the passengers. The learned trial court, vide order dated 17.9.2001, passed the order that the respondents-defendants shall not dispossess the revisionist Corporation from the land in dispute which is being used as bus stand for p...
Mahesh Chandra Vs. Balu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj7; 2002(3)WLC708; 2002(3)WLN646
Chauhan, J.1. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhilwara in Regular Case No. 56/2000 granting relief to defend in summary trial under Order 37 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the present revisionist/plaintiff filed a suit on 30.11.2000 under Order 37 of the Code for recovery of Rs. 60,200/- from the non-petitioner/defendant with the averment that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 35,000/- on 1.12.97 for his personal purpose for a period of six months and he executed one promissory note and also issued a receipt for Rs. 35,000/- on the same date. On receiving the notice, defendant filed reply on 7.4.2001 and also prayed for leave to defend on the ground that he had not borrowed Rs. 35,000/-from the revisionist but had borrowed only Rs. 25,000/- with interest of Rs. 6/- on each hundred and he had d...
Mohan Raj Vs. Karan Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj1; 2002(4)WLN506
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 21-11-2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 152/95, dismissing the application filed by the revisionists under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code').2. The application under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code for taking the documents on record has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that the documents sought to be taken on record related to the year 1992; the suit was filed in 1995; issues were framed on 6-4-98; three witnesses had been examined by the other party; and the said application was filed on 5-9-2001. No sufficient cause was shown by the revisionists for not filing the documents at an early stage.3. In Mt. Taibunnissa Begum v. Jagdip Pandey, AIR 1924 Pat 517, interpreting the provisions of Order 13, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, the Court held as under :--The provision of the sa...
Nirmal Chandra Saini Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj796; 2002(3)WLC402
Calla, J. 1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan HighCourt Ordinance is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.3.96 passed bythe Learned Single Judge whereby the petitioner's writ petition against the order ofthe Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal was dismissed. 2. There are two sets of Rules namely, the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Rules of 1978') and the Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules of 1960'). The post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer included at S. No. 14 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1960 is the lowest post under Section III i.e. Agricultural Engineering. This post is required to be filled 50% by promotion and 50% by recruitment as mentioned in Col.III and Col.IV against it respectively. The promotions on this post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer are required to be made from amongst the holders of the post of Junior Engineer and equivalent post in Raj. Agri...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Bhinmal Co-operative Marketing Society ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN208
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment by the learned Single Judge quashing the proceedings started under Section 229 of the Land Revenue Act. 1956 against the respondent-petitioner for recovering a sum of Rs. 2,71,630/-. The respondent-petitioner is a Co-operative Marketing Society and the amount was sought to be recovered from it as arrears of the land revenue.3. The said notice of initiating proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 was issued on 16.8.1991 by Additional Collector, Jalore (Annexure-12 to the writ petition).4. The District Collector (Relief), Jalore directed the Bhinmal Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. to supply one truck of fodder at each of the centres in the schedule and to furnish the details about the price at which the fodder was purchased, transport cost and the estimated distribution cost so that the rate for distribution of fodder can be fixed and on necessity the supply of more...
Heera Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN509; 2002(3)WLN509
Garg, J. 1. Heard at admission stage.2. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 46/2001 (112/2001) whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner by which custody of Mst. Mangi being father of Mst. Mangi was sought and by the same, order dated 4.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabh Nagar by which he ordered to send Mst. Mangi to Nari Niketan, was also set aside and it was further ordered that Mst. Mangi be handed over to respondent No.2 Shankar Lal.3. It arises in the following circumstances :(i) That Mst. Mangi is daughter of present petitioner and she was married to one Jagannath 4 years' back and before two years, Gona ceremony was also performed and Mst. Mangi started living with her husband Jagannath.(ii) On 6.5.2001, Mst. Mangi was abducted by respo...
Alcobex Metals Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj744; 2002(4)WLN475
Chauhan, J. 1. Both these petitions have been filed challenging the reference made by the Appropriate Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') dated 6.11.99 on the ground that earlier, vide order dated 5.7.95, in respect of the same workmen, the Appropriate Government refused to make a reference and as the said workmen had been appointed for a fixed term, the termination of their services was covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and, therefore, there could be no industrial dispute and the Appropriate Government committed an error in making the reference, hence the same deserves to be quashed.2. The facts are not in dispute. The workmen, in respect of whom the reference has been made, had been employed by the present petitioner and their services stood terminated. Earlier, inspite of raising the industrial dispute, the Appropriate Government refused to make a reference, however, at a later stage, the reference has b...
Giriraj Kunwar Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj967; 2002(3)WLC561; 2002(3)WLN629
Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellant-petitioner, who is a widow, had applied for being appointed against the posts advertised vide Advertisement No. 2 of 1996 issued by District Estabr lishment Committee of Jila Parishad, Udaipur for Teacher Gr. III in the Primary Schools.3 . The petitioner-appellant had passed Secondary Examination. However, she was not offered appointment in pursuance of the said advertisement though she was called for interview. The petitioner filed the writ petition on the ground that she, being a widow, was not required to come within the merit list of the candidates to be appointed on the post and her case was required to be considered if otherwise found eligible to be appointed in terms of Annexure-1, the General Guidelines issued by Government of Rajasthan dated 23rd June, 1993 and she may be given appointment. She has not claimed to declare the process of selection committee otherwise to be invalid or that appointment given to an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »