Rajasthan Court July 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.
Laxmi Engineering Industries Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR703]; RLW2003(3)Raj1735; 2003(1)WLC713
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 30.1.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 17.8.2000 (Annex.P/4) passed by the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 4) by which he, on the application of the respondent No. 2 Union through its President P.L. Srimali (respondent No. 3) filed under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'), did not permit the petitioner employer) to be represented by a lawyer before the Industrial Tribunal, be quashed and set aside. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: The respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan through its Notification dated 26.2.2000 (Annex.P/1) made a reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 to the respondent No. 4 Industrial Tribunal stating whether retrenchment of some workmen on 14.1.1.1998 was ...
Kanhaiya Lal Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2417; 2002(4)WLC1; 2003(1)WLN98
Kumar, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10th September, 1999, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging an order of the Rajasthan civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to as 'the Tribunal') dated 11th May, 1999 whereby the Tribunal had dismissed an application filed by the appellant before it challenging an order dated 18th June, 1996 whereby the appellant had been compulsorily retired.2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant was working in the Revenue Department of the Government of Rajasthan on the post of Patwari at the relevant time. The appellant was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 18th June, 1996 under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Rule 24492) of the Rajasthan Services Rules is reproduced as under:'244(2). The Government may, after giving him at least three months' previous notice in writing require a government servant to retire from the service ...
N.K. Dalal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR118]; RLW2004(1)Raj597; 2002(4)WLC509
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.4. The proviso (a) and (b) appended to Rule 170 of RSR, reads thus:(a) provided that such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the office was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. (b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement of during his re employ-ment:- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal for...
Mohanjeet Singh Juneja Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN327
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This application for bail under Section 439, CrPC arises out of the FIR registered for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 199, 200 and 120-B, IPC.2. It is contended by Mr. Jagdeep Dhanker learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner that originally, the personal loan scheme was based on the trust of borrowers. With a view to plug the short-comings in the scheme, some modifications came to be introduced on 21.6.2002. Some relevant modifications are reproduced below:(a) The branch Manager/Manager of Division should confirm that particulars furnished by the applicant are genuine and authenticated by authorised drawing and disbursing authority of the department, preferably by visit to the employees office/residence and mention the date of visit in his recommendation.(b) The Branch Manager/Manager of Division will also confirm the applicants net income from employer's record/I.T. Form No. 16.(c) The applicant must be an existing customer of the branch having a sa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: I(2004)BC183; (2002)178CTR(Raj)414; [2002]258ITR300(Raj)
1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment of the Tribunal dated March 23, 1999, whereby the Revenue has challenged the decision of the Tribunal on two counts, i.e., whether reopening of the assessment is valid and whether furnishing of bank guarantee by the assessee against customs duty amounts to actual payment of customs duty and is not hit by the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since common questions are involved in these three appeals, therefore, we dispose of all these three appeals by this common order. 2. The assessee-respondent imported news prints, on which customs duty was payable. The assessee-respondent disputed the rate of customs duty before the Supreme Court and made a request for interim ex parte stay order on payment of customs duty. The Supreme Court vide its order dated April 8, 1982, granted stay on the condition of giving an unqualified and categorical bank guarantee for the amount of customs duty payable by the assessee.3. In ...
Mahesh Kanwar and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj610; 2003(1)WLC560
Balia, J. 1. This special appeal raises a question about the validity of option given by the predecessor of appellants in surrendering the surplus land of his holdings as determined in ceiling proceedings.2. The ceiling proceedings were initiated in the case of Ugam Singh, whose sons are the present appellants, under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Ugam Singh, an ex- Jagirdar, had certain lands in villages Chohtan, Kaparau, Itada and laisar in Distt. Barmer. Said Ugam Singh had claimed certain lands to be not his holdings on the basis of transfers made by him. These proceedings relate to one of such lands which according to him did not belong to him and was held by the respondents. The lands in respect of which the transactions for transfer claimed by said Ugam Singh, were all transfers made in favour of (1) Jaswanta Ram by way of a registered sale deed. This transfer related to 8 bighas 19 biswas of land of Khasra No. 550/3 and 12 bighas 10 biswas of Khasra No. 551/3...
Avtar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj2015; 2003(1)WLC274
Gupta, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dt. 28.3.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 23/98, and therefore, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has convicted the appellants Avtar Singh for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo three months Rigorous imprisonment, Harbans Singh and Jarnail Singh have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences of Harbans Singh have been ordered to run concurrently.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.11.1997 at about 1.30 P.M. the informant Rajveer Kaur (the widow of the deceased) got her statement recorded E...
Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. Jagmal Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR516]; RLW2003(3)Raj2061; 2002(5)WLC28; 2002(5)WLN264
Garg, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the impugned order dated 4.6.99 (Annex.5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur by which the pay of respondent No. 1 was ordered to be fixed at par with Shri Natwar Lal and further Rs. 2400/- were ordered to be paid to the respondent No. 1 for the period from 1.1.1995 to 31.12.96 be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i That the petitioner is a Unit of the company being Hindustan Zinc Limited having its head office at Yashad Bhawan, Udaipur. It is a Government of India undertaking in the sense that though it is registered under the Companies Act as a body corporate but its major share holding is of Government of India, and is entitled to file writ petition in the name of its different unit as well.ii That as is a common consequence in the matters of promotion and fitments that at times, for wholly fortuitous circumstances, a ...
K.S. Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN492
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the memo of allegation (Annex.3) as well as the punishment order dated 5.5.2000 (Annex.5) whereby the petitioner was punished in an enquiry initiated under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short '1958, Rules') and his 10% pension for period of 3 years was ordered to be withheld.2. It is not disputed that on the date of superannuation of petitioner i.e. 30.9.1993. an enquiry under Rule 17 of 1958 Rules was pending. The only question which requires consideration is whether on the eve of retirement of petitioner the Disciplinary Authority was competent to convert the enquiry from Rule 17 to Rule 16 of 1958, Rules.3. It will be useful at this juncture to refer to Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules (for short 'RSR'), which reads thus:The governor further reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified...
Ram Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC643; 2003(3)WLN334
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This appeal by accused appellant Ram Gopal, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.1.1997 of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. Only contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that in case the evidence produced by the prosecution is taken to be correct on its face value, the case against the accused appellant does not travel beyond under Section 304-11, IPC. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions:1. Gurnam Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1996 SCC (Cri) 96 and2. Bapu Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 CrLR (Raj.) 418.Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the incident took place at 11.00 AM on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »