Rajasthan Court May 2002 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manager, Northern Railway and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1203; 2002(4)WLC60; 2002(5)WLN529
Tatia, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Jodhpur dated 11.5.2001 passed in O.A. No. 286/98.2. Brief facts of the case are that a Notification dated 8.7.1998 was issued by the petitioners (the railway in particular) to fill up one vacancy of Welfare Inspector in the Grade of Rs. 5000-8000/-. The vacancy was declared reserved for the Scheduled Caste (for short 'the SC') candidate. Aggrieved against the reservation of the vacancy, non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 submitted Original Application No. 286/98 before the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur on the ground inter alia that by filling up one vacancy of Welfare Inspector only from among the reserve category candidates, will amount 100% reservation of the post which is impermissible in law and will deprive the applicant from participating in selection for the post. It was further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supre...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR769]; (2003)ILLJ227Raj; 2002WLC(Raj)UC720
1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance out of the SBCWP No. 594/1989 i.e. Venktesh Co. Ltd. Didwana v. Union of India and Ors. The learned single Judge by his common judgment and order dated January 12, 1990 had decided these writ petitions including the writ petition No. 594/89 and it is this common order dated January 12, 1990 which has been made the subject matter of challenge in this appeal before us. 2. These petitions were filed in the matter of Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and the prayer was made against the orders dated April 6, 1998 etc. as had been passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur and a direction was sought against the respondent No. 2 to treat the petitioner company as a decovered unit and to release it from the statutory obligation of depositing the amount of provident fund under the Act in response of employees. 3. The basic order under challenge was the order of April 6, 1985. The writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Lal Kushal Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1080; 2003(1)WLC134; 2003(2)WLN616
Keshote, J.1. Office objections are dispensed with.2. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner and perusing the revision petition and the order dated 03.10.2001 of the Additional District Judge, Gangapur City in Civil Misc. Case No. 01/96, 1 am satisfied that it has not committed any illegality to hold that the petitioner has failed to establish that the non petitioners have wilfully and deliberately dis obeyed the order of the Court.3. The contempt matter is between the Court and the Contemners and the petitioners role is only of an informant. Where the Court is satisfied that the respondent has not committed any contempt of its order on interference of this court in this finding of the fact is called for under Section 115 of the CPC.4. It is a transfer matter and the petitioner should have not acted in this manner. He is a Government servant and should have been exhibited himself as a law abiding employee. After his relieving from the post, he should have reported at...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Paliwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1118
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Uma Paliwal (petitioner), sole Proprietor of Shruti Marble in whose favour a mining lease for 'marble' over 23204 sqm. area near village Rayawala Tehsil Jamwaramgarh district Jaipur duly granted initially for 10 years w.e.f. 9-9-1981 was transferred by order dated 24-2-1988 and registered transfer agreement dated 8-3-1988 by way of this writ petition has sought an appropriate writ or direction for quashing and setting aside :--(1) an order dated 2-9-2000 (Ann. 10) of the Dy. Conservator of Forest, Jaipur (West) (respondent No. 4); (2) letters dt. 10-10-1999 (Ann. 7) and 16-8-2000 (Ann. 9) insofar as they relate to the mine of the petitioner, by holding her to be entitled to operate her mine in question in accordance with Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short Rajasthan Rules), and (3) for further directing the respondents not to interfere with her mining activities over the mining lease area in question. 2. Admitted facts relevant for decidingt...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Sharma Vs. Rajasthan Tribal Area Development
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1594; 2002(4)WLC784; 2002(5)WLN14
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 5.3.92 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dtd. 30.1.88 (Annex. 13) by which services of the petitioner were terminated be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) The petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of AssistantRegional Manager in the Rajasthan Tribal Area Development Cooperative Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Federation)Vide order dated. 28.1.82.ii) By communication dtd. 10.6.85, the petitioner was charged and this charge was explained by statement of allegation. Copy of Communication dtd. 10.6.85 and statement of allegation are marked as Annex. 1 and 2 respectively. The specific charge against the petitioner was that he proceed the appointment on the post of Assistant Regional Manager by producing a false certificate wherein it was sought to be certified that t...
Tag this Judgment!Gawrilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2370; 2002(5)WLC218; 2002(5)WLN340
Joshi, J.1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the appellate judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bali in criminal appeal No. 9/87, confirming the judgment of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri dated 16th July, 1987 passed in criminal original case No. 31/82 convicting the petitioner Under Section. 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Heard Mr. P.N. Mohnani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Chendra Lekha, learned Public Prosecutor.3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is non-compliance of Section 165 of Cr.P.C. As per Section 16 of the Opium Act (in short 'the Act' hereinafter) while a search is taken Under Section 16 of the Act, the provisions of Section 165 of Cr.P.C. will apply and as no reasonable grounds have been recorded and nothing has been reduced in writing by P.W. 6 Abhay Karan to show that search unde...
Tag this Judgment!Jahur Mohd. Vs. Haji Abdul Gaffar Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN716
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, perusing the memo of revision petition and the impugned order, I am satisfied that the order of the appellate court is perverse and it cannot be allowed to stand. Leaving apart the fact that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 3-A C.P.C. may be directory, otherwise also it is not in dispute that along with the appeal the petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. It is not accompanied with the affidavit so another application is filed, but that does not mean that the first application goes. On the merits also the learned first appellate court has not considered the ground mentioned in the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay i.e. illness of the appellant, who has also filed the medical certificate. In the facts of this case in case the order of the Court below is allowed to stand it will certainly occasion failure of justice to the petitioners.2. In the result t...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR645(Raj)
R. Balia, J.1. These two income-tax references arise out of a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in I. T. A. No. 708/709 (JP) of 1984 for successive assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and common questions arise in these two reference applications except difference in the amount in question in each assessment year. The facts in the context of which these questions have been raised remain the same, therefore, they are being heard and decided together.2. The assessee-company was manufacturing and selling soft drinks under a licence issued by Coca-Cola Export Corporation, USA. For the manufacture of the soft drinks, the concentrate was provided by the Coco-Cola Export Corporation. The arrangement of providing concentrate by the company was disrupted for reasons, which are not germane. As a result of which the bottles with marking of 'Coca-Cola' and 'Fanta' the two products, in which soft drink was marketed earlier remained with the assessee. A...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Higher Secondary School Vs. Rajasthan Non Government Educational ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj530; 2002(3)WLC586; 2002(5)WLN3
Naolekar, J.1. The writ petitions are placed before the Full Bench on a reference made by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.2.2001. The question arose before the Division Bench as to-whether the teachers of Non Government Educational Institutions (for short 'NGEIs') who are receiving grant-in-aid under the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act 1989 (for short 'the Act') read with the rules framed thereunder, namely the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules 1993 (for short 'the Rules'), are entitled to selection scale as given to the employee/teachers serving in government education institutions by virtue of the circular/order dated 25.1.1992,whether the government is bound to give grant-in-aid for selection scale of the teachers of NGEIs receiving aid, andwhether the teachers of NGEIs receiving aid are entitled for leave encashment benefits after retirement under the Act and the...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Raj)42
Rajesh Balia, J.These two income-tax references arise out of a common order passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in ITA No. 708/709(Jp)1984 for successive assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and common questions arise in these two reference applications except difference in the amount in question in each assessment year. The facts in the context of which these questions have been raised remain the same, therefore, they are being heard and decided together .2. The assessee-company was manufacturing and selling soft drinks under a licence issued by M/s Coca-Cola Export Corporation, USA. For the manufacture of the soft drinks, the concentrate was provided by the Coca-Cola Export Corporation. The arrangement of providing concentrate by the company was disrupted for reasons, which are not germane. As a result of which the bottles with marking of 'Coca-Cola' and 'Fanta' the two products, in which soft drink was marketed earlier remained with the assessee. As a result of disruption o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »