Rajasthan Court July 2003 Judgments
Jaggu Singh Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj182; 2003(4)WLC135
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 21.5.1956. During the period when the petitioner was on reserve service w.e.f. 1.10.1960, he was called upon to join colour service on 21.9.1965 after declaration of national emergency during 1965 Indo-Pak war. However, the petitioner, for one reason or the other, could join the services only on 21.9.1966. Declaring the petitioner as deserter, his pay and allowances were forfeited for the above period of the duration of 339 days. The petitioner continued in the colour as well as reserve service till 21.10.1971 when he reached the age' of superannuation. Since the petitioner was not paid any pension or other retiral benefits, various representations were made by the petitioner and having failed to get the positive response, the present writ petition has been filed claiming the pensionary benefits.2. In reply to the writ petition it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had not completed the q...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Raj Kailash Chandra and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj20; RLW2004(1)Raj633; 2004(1)WLC1
Anil Dev Singh, C.J. 1. These appeals raise common questions of fact and law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17th January, 2003 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3915/2002 etc. By that order the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions basing its decision on an earlier judgment rendered in Marudhar Trading Co., Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan dated 16th January, 2003, rendered in SBCW Petition No. 3916/2002.3. The State Government established Krishi Upaj Mandi Samities at District Jodhpur and at various other places. This was done in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'),4. In the instant appeals we are concerned with Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur. The Samiti constructed shops in the Municipal Market Yards. Initially the Samiti invited applications for allotment of shop...
Tag this Judgment!Geeta Devi and ors. (Smt.) Vs. Shiv Shankar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC804; 2005ACJ803; RLW2004(2)Raj1169; 2004(1)WLC177
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, refusing the appellants' application filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, in a claim filed by the claimants, under the Workmen Compensation Act.2. According to the averments of the claim, the deceased was employed as Khalasi on the truck, on the fateful day, the truck was parked in RIICO Area for being unloaded. At that time, it is alleged that after alighting from the truck, the deceased vomited blood, and died. It is, on the basis of this sequence of events, that the claim petition was filed, and the provisions of Section 140 are sought to be invoked.3. For deciding the question about applicability of Section 140, I may gainfully quote the relevant part of Section 140, being Section 140 which reads as under:-'(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the...
Tag this Judgment!Dayala @ Daya Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj963; 2003(4)WLC775
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, six in number, were indicted before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bundi in Sessions Case No. 10/2001 for having committed murder of Sukhdev. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated September 22, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-Under Section 302/149 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fineof Rs. 500/-, in default to further sufferthree Months Imprisonment.Under Section 147 IPC To suffer One Year RigorousImprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, indefault to further suffer One MonthImprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC To suffer Two Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, indefault to further suffer Two Months ImprisonmentAll sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Hemraj (PW. 6) submitted a written report to the SHO Police Station Dablana (Bundi) on August 2, 1997 with the averments that in the morning at about 7.30 AM on the said day he and his m...
Tag this Judgment!Narsinghdas Ramakishan Pungaliya Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)448; [2005]272ITR467(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The appeal was admitted in terms of the following questions:(i) Whether the non-maintenance of brand-wise record of sales of Deshi Ghee can be a ground for rejection of accounts under Section 145(3) particularly when the purchase and sales are duly vouched and audited and the stock is maintained? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the assessing authority rejecting the accounts of the appellate under Section 145(3) of the Act of 1961 when the account books of the appellant maintained in the same style and fashion for preceding and succeeding assessment years have been accepted 3. For the relevant asst. yr. 1990-91, the assessee filed the return disclosing the income of Rs. 4,10,160. During the course of assessment, the AO has noticed some defects in the books of accounts of assessee, Some discrepancies are with regard to the credit and debit entries passed on account of...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2730
Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th May, 2002 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1548/2001. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows.2. The appellant was granted patta of a residential plot measuring 20 x 40 years by the Gram Panchayat, Udasar, The patta was challenged by Vikas Adhikari before the Collector, Bikaner under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994' hereinafter) by means of a revision petition. The Collector vide its order dated 30th December, 2000 allowed the revision petition preferred by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner and cancelled the patta issued in favour of the appellant.3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order passed by the Collector. The appellant has challenged the order of the learned S...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council and ors. Vs. Civil Judge (S.D.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj145
Parihar, J.1. Though the suit for recovery was dismissed by the trial court, however, the appellate court vide order dated 30.4.2003 while allowing the suit, decreed the same for an amount of Rs. 15,360/- which was directed to be paid to respondent No. 3 with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the suit, since the second appeal has been barred as per amended provisions of Section 102 CPC, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.4.2003 passed by the appellant court.2. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and it cannot be exercised to by-pass the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the writ petitions are entertained in such matters, the same will frustrate the very purpose of amendment made under Section 102 CPC.3. Be that as it may, after having gone though the impugned order, I find n error or illegality in the same so as to call for any further interference of this court in the pres...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj676; 2003(4)WLC633
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent on 27.6.2003 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order of direction, the adverse remarks passed y the respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu) on the joining report dtd. 25.6.2003 (Annex.7) submitted by the petitioner to the effect that 'he is not suitable for DPIP. He may be posted to any other Dept. Detailed factual position is being sent separately' may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be allowed to join his duty in pursuance of transfer order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3) passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur) whereby the petitioner was transferred from the office of Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu to the office of Dist. Poverty Improvement Project, Churu.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:-i) That the petitioner was initially appointed as an Accountan...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1101; 2003(4)WLC607
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The back drop of the case unfurls a story of continued hostility between the appellant husband Krishan Kumar and his wife Smt. Simla Devi. The unfortunate victim is the intervenor Kaur Singh who ventured to bring peace and happiness in their life. In the mid night at about 12:00 P.W.6 Sher Singh alias Pappu informed P.W. 1 Surjit Singh that his son Kaur Singh was being assaulted by appellant Krishan Kumar, Shravan Ram and Asha Ram (both since acquitted) by sword, Kulhari, Dantar etc. in the street behind the house of P.W. 7 Gurjant Singh. He rushed to the spot and challenged them. The assailants seeing him took to their heels and escaped from the place. He found the body of Kaur Singh smeared with blood. Kaur Singh breathed last on the spot. PW 1 Surjit Singh lodged a written First Information Report of the incident on 21st June, 1997 at 7:00 A.M. at Police Station, Padampur. On this information police registered a case for offence under Section 302, 302/34 I.P.C. and...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj307
Anil Dev Singh, C.J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners inter alia challenge the decision of the Gram Panchayat, Bhacharna to shift the location of the school site from the site which was selected and agreed upon in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat dated 1st May, 1999. 2. The State Government approved the Scheme under which schools known, as 'Rajiv Gandhi Swaranjayanti Pathshalas' were to be opened in villages of the State of Rajasthan. In pursuance of the Scheme the Gram Panchayats were directed to hold meetings on 1st May, 1999 for the purpose of deciding the location of the schools in the villages. Gram Panchayat, Bhacharna also held a meeting on 1st May, 1999 and decided to locate the school in khasra No. 2 of Ward No. 2. On 3rd May, 1999 the Chief Executive, Zilla Parishad, sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- for construction of the school. 3. It appears that the Gram Panchayat reconsidered the question of locating the school in the village and decided to construct the same in K...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »