Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2127; 2003(3)WLC567
Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.2. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order dated 20th July, 2001 by which the labour Court, Jodhpur in labour case No. 22/2000 held that not giving of the semi permanent status to Shyam Sunder and Alok Vyas by orders dated 1st Jan., 1996 & 28th Oct., 1995 is unjust and illegal. The labour Court directed petitioners-non-applicants to grant the semi permanent status to the workmen on completion of two year's service from the initial date of appointment i.e. from 1st Dec., 1992 for Shyam Sunder and 1 st Oct., 1991 for Alok Vyas and grant regular pay scale after declaring them semi permanent.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Rajasthan (Public Works Department (B & R) including Garden. Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments) Work-charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules of 1964'), the employee can claim his right of consideration for grant of semi permanent status...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj963; 2003(2)WLC656
Parihar, J. 1. Coffers are being dug to find life in the coffins, the final nails on which had already been put by the Supreme Court long back.2. Petitioners are seeking appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in pursuance to the selections made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide advertisement issued way back in the year 1986. The whole controversy has been concluded by the Supreme Court by issuing necessary directions. The presence writ petition has been filed after more than 16 years, mainly on the ground that since the persons, who had been given appointment might not have joined, the petitioners should be given appointment in their place from the select list prepared for the year 1986.3. The contention as raised by the Petitioner in the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and itself will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India if any such directions are issued by this Court after more than a decade of the completion of the whole...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj867; 2003(2)WLC387; 2003WLC(Raj)UC330
Goyal, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against two orders dated 8.2.2002 and 12.11.2002.2. In brief the facts of the case are that one F.I.R. No. 425/2001 was registered at police station Hindaun City implicating the accused petitioner, his mother and brothers for offences under various Sections of I.P.C. including Section 302 I.P.C. During investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested on 14.8.2001 treating him above the age of 18 years. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and case was committed to sessions, which came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City. Sessions Case No. 112/2001 was registered. An application for bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the accused petitioner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.1.2001 directed the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct an inquiry about the age of the accused petitioner. In compliance of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj1115; 2003(2)WLC395
Goyal, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt.21.4.2001, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer, affirmed the order dated 18.11.2000 by which learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Ajmer, released the vehicle in question in favour of respondent No. 3, through respondent No. 2.2. The facts in brief are that Truck No. GJ-18-T-269, was purchased by the petitioner on hire-purchase basis from the respondent No. 3 Tata Finance Ltd. An agreement to this effect was executed on 21.8.1997. On 14.10.2000, the respondent Company took possession of the said vehicle on account of over due amount. Thereupon a complaint on behalf of the petitioner was lodged against the respondent Company. It is not disputed that after investigation, final report was submitted by the Police in the Court.3. In the meantime the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2, on behalf of the respondent No. 3, applied for delivery of possession of this truck. Learned Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj283; RLW2003(2)Raj1340; 2003(3)WLC87; 2003(2)WLN480
Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties Finally.2. Brief facts of the case are that the Executive Engineer for excavation of the sand from the land for brick kiln for a period of five years on 24th May, 2000. Copy of the licence is placed on record as Annex. 1. On 5th March, 2002, the Assistant Secretary to the State Irrigation Department conveyed to the respondent No. 2, approval of water supply to the petitioner for the purpose of brick kiln in Chak No. 2J Bada in the name of Rakesh Cement Udhyog to the extent of 0.03 cusecs for a period of 2 years on the condition that the petitioner will be bound by the conditions imposed by the State Government. Copy of this order is Annex. 2.3. It is alleged that the respondent can charge the amount for water supplied to the petitioner in accordance with the Item No. 1 of Schedule 1 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 only whereas the petitioner is being compelled to pay Rs. 20/- per 1,000 cubic feet of water supply, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj1279; 2003(2)WLC644
Parihar, J.1. Since on similar set of facts common question of law been involved and similar relief has been claimed by the petitioners, at joint request of the parties, the above writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. 18 Vacancies for the post of Senior Manager/Area Manager were determined by the respondent-The Hadoti Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kota for the year 1994-95. Out of 18 vacancies, 13 vacancies were reserved for general category, 3 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Castes category and 2 vacancies for Scheduled Tribes category.3. The matter was referred to the Staff Selection Committee (for short 'the Committee') for making recommendations for promotion to the above posts. As per the criteria laid down by the respondent Bank, interviews were held by the Committee on 26.4.1995. Subsequently, on recommendations of the Committee, promotions were made accordingly vide order dated 1.6.1995. The petitioners and some of the aggrieved pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj233; 2003(3)WLC368
ORDERRajendra Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The facts giving rise to present writ petition are that the sale deed purported to be executed by Smt. Shahjadi Khatu W/o Salim Khan in favour of the petitioners on 12th May, 1993 and on that very day it was produced before the Sub-Registrar, Phalodi.3. The Sub-Registrar made the following endorsement on the presentation disclosing that an enquiry required to be made under Section 34, was made by him about the due execution of document :4. After the aforesaid endorsement was made, vide order dated 14th June, 1993 the Sub-Registrar. Phalodi, refused to register the document for the reason that he does not consider it in the interest of justice to register the said document. The entire order reads as under :(Vernacular matter omitted.........Ed.)5. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid two orders of Sub-Registrar before the Registrar, Jodhpur, on 17-7-1993 and preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondent S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj812; 2004(5)WLC637; 2003(2)WLN382
Goyal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary. It was argued that recallery has already been made and according to case liary no such precious case was registered against the accord. 2. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Therefore, the SHO of Police Station Excise Code, Chirasla is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Harkesh Kumar s/o Phool Singh in FIR No. 35/2002 of aforesaid police station be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) with one sound surety of Rs. 20,000/- to the satisfaction of concerned SHO on the following conditions :- 1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2003)182CTR(Raj)542; [2003]263ITR125(Raj)
1. On this application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide its order dt. 29th July, 1992, has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the technical fees of Rs. 1,13,572 and Rs. 1,79,775 were required to be charged @ 20 per cent as per provisions of Section 115A(1)(b)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time ?' The facts of the case are that the assessee M/s Foss Electronic, is a nonresident foreign company, developer of milko tester minor and designer and manufacturer of milk analysers (hereinafter referred to as 'the foreign company') agreed on 31st Oct., 1980, to supply technical Know-how to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Indian company'), which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2003]129TAXMAN976(Raj)
Since similar questions of law are involved in both the reference applications, both are being decided by this common judgment.2. By this application under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that gratuity liability is an ascertained liability and, therefore, the same should be deducted while determining the market value of share of M/s. Krishna Mills Ltd., Beawar 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that provisions of section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act are applicable in respect of immovable properties occupied by partners for their self-residence notwithstanding the fact that the properties belonged to the firm ?3. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!