Rajasthan Court May 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.
Bhilwara Ajmer Kshetriya GramIn Bank Vs. Madav Gopal Garg
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN20
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.5.1998 passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner.3. The facts leading to this appeal are that the respondent- petitioner was appointed as a probationer with the appellant Bank by letter of appointment dated 2.2.1985 and his services were terminated on 14.8.1987 ostensibly by discharge simpliciter vide Annexupe 35 dated 14.8.1987 by enclosing three months emoluments in lieu of three months' notice as envisaged under the terms of appointment. Appeal against that order Annexure 35 was also dismissed by the Board of Directors of the Bank vide communication dated 18.3.1988. The other facts which have come on record are that the probation period of the petitioner which was initially for two years and could be extended by one year was extended by six months w.e.f. 11.2.1987. After the extension of period of probation, a chargesheet ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)552; [2003]259ITR212(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(2), this court has directed the Tribunal to refer the following questions. In compliance with the direction of this court, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of higher deductions under Chapter VI-A by way of revised return was bona fide being based on legal opinion obtained by the assessee notwithstanding that the claim was not in accordance with the provisions of law and also that no such plea of having obtained legal opinion was raised during the course of assessment proceedings ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no difference in the figures of income ret...
Prakash Chandra Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ997Raj; RLW2003(3)Raj1643; 2002(4)WLC367; 2003(2)WLN281
Balia, J.1. These three special appeals arise out of a common judgment and raise identical questions and hence, they are being disposed of by a Common Judgment.2. For the purpose of deciding these appeals, it would be apposite to narrate the facts of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 852 of 2001.3. Petitioner Prakash Chandra Sharma was appointed on 1.8.69 on the post of Upper Division Clerk in Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. He was superannuated on 31.7.99 from the post of Stores Officer. After his superannuation, though he has been granted pension and other retiral benefits but he has not been paid the Gratuity. According to the petitioner, the State of Rajasthan vide its'order (Annex.3) dated 25.7.72 made Raj.Municipalities (Contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity) Rules, 1963 applicable to the employees of Urban Improvement Trust of the State. Rule 11 of the Rules provides payment of Gratuity and it specifically provides that gratuity shall be granted to those employees who have comp...
Vimla Devi and anr. (Smt.) Vs. Rajendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC89; 2004ACJ504; RLW2003(3)Raj1562; 2002(5)WLN702
Balia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.5.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Vimla Devi and Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2155 , whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants were claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (for short 'the Tribunal'). The accident occurred on 19.6.1988. The claim petition No. 66 of 1988 filed by the appellants was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.5.1993 as their counsel was absent at the time when the matter came up for hearing, the claimants-appellants who are the legal representatives of deceased Jankinath @ Jankidass had not filed any application for restoration but they preferred a fresh claim petition on 28.11.1997. The Tribunal rejected their fresh claim petition holding that the claimants have not made out sufficient cause for their non-appearance on 20.5.1993, the...
Ganga Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1513; 2002(5)WLC948; 2002(5)WLN670
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been fled by the petitioners on 22.7.1992 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed not to recover the penal rent from the petitioners and the order dated 18.6.1992 (Annex.5) passed by the Executive Engineer, Division-1, Mahi Dam, Banswara be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The petitioners are working with the respondents for the last more than 15 years. The petitioners applied for allotment of VI Type Houses through applications to the respondent No. 3 Executive Engineer, Division-1 Mahi Dam, Banswara. Thereafter, the petitioners requested the respondent No. 3 Executive Engineer many times for allotment of houses and the respondents used to give assurance that house will be allotted to them as soon as the same were made available. However, some houses were allotted to the persons junior to the petitioners and, t...
ishwariya and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1091; 2002(3)WLC388
Bansal, J. 1. The instant appeal stems from the judgment dated June 29, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana (Distt. Bharatpur) in Session Case No. 85/94, whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-1.Bane Singh, Ishwariya,Natholi and Smt. Kistooriu/S. 302 IPCLife imprisonment with afine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 monthsR.I. u/S. 148 IPCOne year R.I.2.Smt. Triveni & Smt.Gangau/S. 302/149 IPCLife imprisonment with afine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 monthsR.I. u/S. 148 IPCOne year R.I.2. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. Briefly stated the prosecution case in that PW-1 Lalchand S/o Gangi, by caste-Dhakar, R/o Dehgaon, Police Station, Bayana submitted a written report.Ex.Pl to S.H.O., P.S., Bayana on September 14, 1994 at 2:30 p.m. with the averments that today at about 12:00 noon, his son Ramesh was present in his field of Bajra (millet) crop ...
Vishnudutt Vs. Manoj Kumar and ors. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1610; 2003(1)WLN52
Balia, J.1. These 11 appeals arise out of 11 Writ Petitions filed by respective respondent No. 1 in each case against the common order delivered by learned single Judge by considering 11 petitions along with some other petitions on 27th July, 2001.2. The facts necessary for the present purposes may be chaffed. All the respondents No. 1 have been granted permits by the Regional transport Authority, Bikaner on 29-2-1996 for inter-State route Hanumangarh to Dadawali via Sangaria covering State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana. At that time, when these permits were granted, the agreement entered between the two States for this route in 1968 was in force. The respective respondents were holding permits under that agreement from different dates since before commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.3. Until grant of permits vide order dated 29-2-1996 in replacement of earlier permits, all the permits were renewed from time to time under the Act...
Hanuman Singh and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Raj365; 2002(3)WLC583; 2002(4)WLN519
Arun Kumar, C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23-10-1996 referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench :'Whether the decision in Sarjuja Transport Service's case would operate as an absolute bar against entertainment of any subsequent writ petition when an earlier petition has been withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition and in no circumstances a second petition can be entertained by the High Court on the same subject-matter.'In view of the said reference order, the matter has been placed before this Full Bench.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. In order to appreciate the controversy in the case, a brief background may be stated. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed in this Court challenging an order passed by the Board of Revenue. This writ petition bearing No. 5289 of 1993 was dismissed as withdrawn on 13-3-1995. Thereafter, a review petition is said to have been filed before th...
Karni Dan Singh Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj98; 2003(2)WLC188; 2003(2)WLN162
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) read with Order 9, Rule 9, CPC is directed against the order dated 19-12-97 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant for restoration of the suit was dismissed for want of payment of process fee and filing of notices for service on defendant-respondents. Aggrieved by the order impugned of the trial Court, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present appeal.2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 10-2-1981 the plaintiff-appellant originally filed a suit for declaration and Possession with other consequential reliefs' in respect of the property in dispute. The original suit was posted for the plaintiffs evidence on 2-3-94, On this date neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared and the trial Court dismissed the suit for default. Against the ord...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj833; 2002(5)WLN24
Kumar, C.J. 1. In order to appreciate the legal question involved in this batch of special appeals it is necessary to give a brief background. The Municipal Council, Hanumangarh (referred to hereinafter as 'the Council' in short) had constructed some shops in a market known as Kamla Nehru Market. The writ petitioners are vegetable vendors who used to sell vegetables on the foot-path in the market. During the period from 1976 to 1978 about 66 shops were constructed in the market. The market was named as Kamla Nehru Market, Hanumangarh Junction. The size of the shops is 10' x 10'. While allotting the shops to the petitioners and others agreementswere executed between the Council and the allottees. Copy of agreement is annexed to the petition. As per the agreement, the allottees were liable to pay at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month for the shops allotted to them. In the year 1983, the State Government issued an order dated 10.8.1983 containing guide-lines regarding sale and settlement of p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »