Rajasthan Court October 2003 Judgments
Prashant Bohra and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj457
Panwar, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek the relief of grant of salary in the pay scale of Rs. 3200- 85-4900 from the date of their initial appointment and the arrears of salary alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this writ petition are that in pursuance of the advertisement No. 1/99 dated 26-2-99 issued by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, the petitioners applied for the post of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv, As per the advertisement itself, the said posts were carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3200-85-4900/-. The petitioners qualified the written examination and they were declared successful. Meanwhile, a ban was imposed on appointment and after lifting of the ban, they were given appointment vide orders dated 28-10-99 and 15-11-99 on the consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month. Thereafter petitioners were sent for training and they completed the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that as pe...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. the Chief Executive National Co-operative Union o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1187]; RLW2004(2)Raj1087; 2004(1)WLC648
Panwar, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the relief to quash the impugned order dated 24.1.2003 (Annex. 4) and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue, or absorb him in accordance with his qualification, merits and experience.2. The fact and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner has to his credit the qualification of M.Com. (Business Administration). After going through the selection process, vide order Annex.1 dated 12.8.1991, the petitioner was temporarily appointed on the post of Co-operative Education Instructor (Handlooms). Vide order dated 2.2.2000 (Annex.2), the petitioner was promoted/appointed on the post of Project Officer-cum-Senior Instructor in temporary capacity with the assurance that he need not worry about the temporary status of the job because in the past also, all the employees of the projects had been absorbed some where. The respondent runs many projects/single units in Handloom sector, handicraft sector...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Maheshwari and anr. Vs. Chothu, Moola and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC14; 2004(2)WLC97
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This appeal by the claimants involves for decision only a short point relating to the liability under comprehensive policy of insurance issued by the Insurance Company (third respondent).2. Contextual facts depict that on February 18, 1987 claimant Ashok Maheshwary and his wife Madhu (deceased) were proceeding on Luna bearing No. RNL 3344 owned and driven by the claimant Ashok Maheshwary and was under comprehensive insurance policy issued by third respondent. Around 5.30 p.m. Tractor No. RSB 2213 collided with Luna as a result of which Madhu fell down and wheel of tractor crushed her. The claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal. Third respondent filed written statement wherein it was pleaded that as there was no rash and negligence on the part of driver of Luna the third respondent was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal framed issue No. 4 in this regard, decided it against the claimants and exone...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3470; 2003WLC(Raj)UC105
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed seeking direction to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 12-12-2002 whereby he has set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the direction to deliver the jeep bearing No. HR-22/8010 on superdgi to respondent namely Kartik Finance Company.2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the jeep bearing No. HR-22/8010 was seized in connection with an F.I.R. Case No. 524/2002 Police Station Hanumangarh Junction. The said case has been registered against the driver of the jeep for offence under Sections 279 and 337, I.P.C. The petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle claimed the delivery of vehicle. The respondent-finance company also submitted an application for the delivery of vehicle. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considering the petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle, directed to deliver the...
Tag this Judgment!Banshi Lal and ors. Vs. Smt. Raj Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj92; RLW2004(1)Raj452; 2004(2)WLC91
Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. This second appeal is against the judgments and decrees of the two courts below by which the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession of the property in dispute against the defendant-respondents by judgment and decree dated 11.9.1990 and against which, the first appeal, was dismissed by the first appellate court by judgment and decree dated 22.7.1999.3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Kalicharan, Shrinivas and Bhagwati Lal submitted that they are owners and are in possession of the property mentioned in para No. 1 and described in para No. 2 of the plaint. The defendant's ancestor Kalyan Mal was brother in near relation of the plaintiffs, as they are also corning from the family of one common ancestor Sukhdeoji. It is stated that after the purchase of the big property (Nohara), the plaintiffs proceeded to take possession of the Nohara from the deceased Kalyan Mal. The plaintiffs offered...
Tag this Judgment!Paramjeet Singh and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2653; RLW2004(2)Raj1004; 2004(1)WLC698
N.N. Mathur, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the trial court namely Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh dated 16.11.2002 whereby he has allowed the application filed by the complainant Inderjeet Singh under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for production of various files pertaining to revenue proceedings. It appears that the second respondent Inderjeet Singh filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh complaining that the accused petitioner Paramjeet Singh has forged the will of deceased Rajendra Singh. The complaint was sent for investigation to S.H.O., Police Station, Anoopgarh under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After usual investigation the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused petitioner along with three other accused persons for offence under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477 & 120B I.P.C. During the trial the prosecution evidence was closed on 1.10.20...
Tag this Judgment!Duli Chand Vs. Bhandari Das and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj70; II(2004)BC538; RLW2004(1)Raj498
Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Brief but interesting facts of the case are that one Shri Bhandari Das-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of a patty amount and the trial court passed the decree for total amount of Rs. 2658.50 on 30th May, 1974. The respondent No. 1 is yet to get this patty amount of Rs. 2658.50 and interest from the judgment debtor even after about 30 years.3. In execution of the said decree, the property in dispute was attached and the property was put to auction from 20th July to 22nd July, 1982. The appellant objector submitted an objection petition before the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. on 21st July, 1982. The objection petition was allowed by the Executing Court by the judgment dated 29th Sept., 1993 after about more than 11 years. During this proceeding before the Executing Court, an objection was raised about the admissibility of a partition dead, which was relied upon by the objector. The trial court refused to ad...
Tag this Judgment!Emna (Smt.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2198; 2004(1)WLC442
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Writ petition filed by the appellant for grant of disability and special family pension was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated April 16, 2003. Against this order that the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.2. Contextual facts depict that husband of appellant late Sakuria was enrolled in Sadul right infantry of Erstwhile Bikaner State Forces on November 1, 1938 in medical category A. At the time of enrollment Sakuria was fully fit and did not suffer from any disease. He fought during Second World War for five years from November 17, 1942 to December 17, 1945 and was awarded HH's Accession Medal 1943. War Medal, Defence Medal and Indian Independence Medal. On Independence the Unit of petitioner was merged with the Rajasthan State Forces and later with the Rajput Regiment of the Indian Army. While serving on Indo-Pak boarder the petitioner suffered wounds and lost vision in left eye and invalided out of service on recommendation ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalchand Surana Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(NULL)629
ORDERHari Om Maratha, J.M.These two penalty appeals relate to the same assessee but for different assessment years 1992-93 and 1991-92. So, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The brief facts of both the cases are almost identical. The assessee is a Development Officer in LIC. During the years under consideration, the assessee worked as an agent upto 4-7-1991. During assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 he earned commission from LIC of India of Rs. 1,49,210 and Rs. 1,77,442, respectively. Accordingly, returns declaring income of Rs. 35,510 and Rs. 45,440 were filed on 29-6-1992 and 6-7-1992, respectively, after claiming expenditure of Rs. 1,13,698 and Rs. 1,49,211 under various heads on estimate basis motioned in income and expenditure account. A survey was carried out at the residence-cum-office of the appellant on 26-8-1992, during which statement of the assessee was recorded in which the assessee denied the maintenance of any books of accou...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Regar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj790
Parihar, J.1. Petitioner is seeking to the post of Livestock Assistant with effect from the year 1994. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working on the post of Sayis/ Jaldhari. Promotions, as sought, are made under the provisions of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977. In the Schedule appended to the above Rules, promotion to the post of Livestock Assistant is made from the post of Dresser/ Laboratory Attendant. The above post of Dresser/ Laboratory Attendant is also a promotion post and the promotion to the said post is made from the post of Class-IV servants other than those doing purely office job as Peon/Jam ad ar/Daftari. The post of Sayis/Jaldhari has not been included in the Schedule of Rules of 1977.2. Be that as it may, the post of Sayis/Jaldhari at the most can be treated as equivalent to the post of Class-IV. As such, the petitioner cannot be promoted to the post of Livestock Assistant which shall mean double promotion to the petitioner, as claim...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »