Rajasthan Court April 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.
Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Karamchari Rajya Beema Nigam and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR39]; RLW2003(2)Raj1225; 2002(4)WLC106; 2002(5)WLN595
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Single Judge dated 10.9.2001 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 154/2001 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 155/2001, which arose under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 in respect of an order passed by E.S.I. Court on an application made by the Board.3. In these two appeals, by notification dated 14th March, 1985 issued by the Central Government the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the E.S.I. Act'), has been extended to Hanumangarh Junction and Hanumangarh Town. As a result of the said notification E.S.I. Scheme became applicable and operative in the aforesaid areas w.e.f. 16.3.85.4. After the extension of the provisions of the Act to the area of Hanumangarh Town and Hanumangarh Junction, the Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation, inspected the premises of the Assistant Engineer R.S.E.B. (O & M), Hanumangarh Town, in the presence of Shri Gurjeet Singh...
Urban Improvement Trust, Kota Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Kota and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC674
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. An award has been passed in favour of the workman-respondent No. 2-Bhagwati Prasad Sharma essentially on the ground that his services got merged with the petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust, Kota and hence his services could not have been terminated. Consequently an order of his reinstatement has been passed alongwith 25% of back wages.2. The petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust, Kota has challenged the aforesaid award and while assailing this, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that the workman-respondent No. 2 was sent on deputation to the petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust, Kota from Larsen & Tubero. Therefore, his services could not have been treated as merged with the petitioner-Organisation. This aspect of the case has been meticulously dealt with by the learned Judge, Labour Court who is right in recording that although the workman-respondent No. 2 initially was sent on deputation with the petitioner, that was to exist only for a peri...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ishwardass Mutha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)759; [2004]270ITR597(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. Both the reference applications under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, are at the instance of the Revenue from the order of the Tribunal, dt. 3rd Sept., 1997. The IT Ref. No. 43. 1998 pertains to asst. yr. 1981-82 and the IT Ref. No. 1/1998 pertains to asst. yr. 1982-83 and the same assessee namely, Ishwardass Mutha.2. In D.B. IT Ref. No. 43/1998 it appears that the assessee Iswardass Mutha filed a return in the year 1983 showing the total income of Rs. 13,410 representing share from M/s Chogalal Bhimraj, a firm. This return was accepted under Section 143(1) on 19th March, 1983, in a routine manner. On the basis of certain incriminating documents seized in the course of search, the assessing authority opined that there was an escapement of income. Accordingly, he issued a notice under Section 148 and found that there was unexplained investment in the money-lending business during the period 24th May, 1980, to 1st Nov., 1980, aggregating to Rs. 78,000. Thus, an addition ...
Shakil Ahmed Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(85)ECC774
Arun Madan, J. 1. When at the outset I decline to suspend the impugned sentence on any of grounds, and ask the learned counsel for the applicant to get the appeal, itself, heard on merits, Shri Tyagi instead of not pressing this 3rd application, sought to keep the same pending till the hearing of the appeal, which cannot be allowed. Hence by this detailed order, I dispose of this petition. 2. This is third petition seeking suspension of impugned sentence. First application was decided on merit keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in (1) Maqtool Singh v. State of Punjab (1999 (2) JT (SC) 176), but the appellant was ordered to be released on parole on the ground of sickness of his child/son for three months vide order dated 6.7.99 in SB Cr. Bail Appln. No. 298/99. Again on an application, this court by its order dated 10.12.99 in Cr. Appeal No. 310/99 ordered to release on temporary bail (parole) for four months from that day with the direction to surrender on 17.4.2000, follow...
Shakil Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC578
Madan, J. 1. When at the outset I decline to suspend the impugned sentence on any of grounds, and ask the learned counsel for the applicant to get the appeal, itself, heard on merits, Shri Tyagi instead of not pressing this 3rd application, sought to keep the same pending till the hearing of the appeal, which cannot be allowed. Hence by this detailed order, 1 dispose of this petition.2. This is third petition seeking suspension of impugned sentence. First application was decided on merit keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in Maqtool Singh v. State of Punjab (1) , but the appellant was ordered to be released on parole on the ground of sickness of his child/son for three months vide order dated 6.7.99 in S.B. Cr. Bail Appln. No. 298/99. Again on an application, this Court by its order dated 10.12.99 in Cr. Appeal No. 310/99 ordered to release on temporary bail (parole) for four months from that day with the direction to surrender on 17.4.2000, followed by another order dated ...
Prem Shanker and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC471
Sharma, J.1. Instant appeals stem from the judgment dated August 22, 1996 of the learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 36/1996 whereby the appellants Prem Shanker and Yogesh were convicted and sentenced as under-Prem ShankerU/s. 302/34 1PCto suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-in defaultto further undergo three months S.I.YogeshU/s. 302/34 IPCto suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-in defaultto further undergo three months S.I.U/s. 324 IPCone year R.I. and fine of Rs. 100 in default to further sufferone month S.I.Acquittal of other four accused Shatrughan. Sita Ram, Prahladand Arun Kumar has however been assailed by the State of Rajasthan.2. Incident giving rise to these appeals as per Parcha Bayan of injured Anil Sharma occurred on June 6, 1994 at 9.45 a.m. when on his shop Arpan Garments Anil was sitting alongwith his father Govind Prasad (deceased), brother Bhawani Shankar (injured) and uncle Nathu Lal (deceased), suddenly Yogesh, Prem...
Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC7
Arun Madan, J.1. These two writ petitions since relate to one and selfsame mining lease dispute as to the revision of dead rent and having been filed by petitioners M/s Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. have been jointly heard at the request of both the parties and are therefore disposed of by this common order.2. Shorn in details relevant facts necessary for disposal of theses petitions are epitomised thus. Admittedly the petitioner Company was granted mining lease for the lime stone (building stone) for ten years w.e.f. 1/10/59 in respect of an area of 4810.16 acres in Ramcanj Mandi on annual dead rent of Rs. 2 lacs. Even first renewal was undisputaoly granted on double the annual dead rent at Rs. 4 lacs and further followed by second renewal for 10 years from 1/10/1979 as to area of 14.146 sq.km. vide Annexure 1 but at the annual dead rent being computed as per 2nd schedule of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral ConcessionRules 1977 (for brevity 1977 Rules) which was fixed at Rs. 14,...
Rama Vs. Megha and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Raj309; 2002(3)WLC466; 2002(4)WLN24
ORDERB.S. Chauhanj, J. 1. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 14-3-2002 passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the order dated 19-12-2001 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application of the non-petitioner No. 1 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), restraining the petitioner to interfere with the easementary right of way of the non-petitioner. 2. The facts and circumstances givingrise to this case are that petitioner and non-petitioner No. 1 are real brothers and were in joint possession of the entire agricultural holding till 22-9-84 when it was partitioned by registered partition deed. The suit was filed for claiming easementary rights of way. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was filed for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court rejected the said application, vide order under 19-12-2001. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›