Rajasthan Court September 2003 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.
Hariom Meena Vs. Chairman, Jvvnl and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2078; 2004(2)WLC89
Parihar, J.1. An advertisement dated 16.10.2002 was issued by the respondent for selection to the post of Junior Engineer on contract basis for a period of three years. Initially certain bonus marks were provided for preparing merit list, however, subsequently by a corrigendum issued, the criteria for making selection was changed and the merit list was to be prepared only on the basis of marks obtained in degree/diploma as also the interview. After due selections, appointments have also been made vide order dated 19/7/2003.2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the selections made and also the criteria as fixed by the respondents for making such selections.3. In absence of any rules, it is for the recruitment/selection committee to fix criteria for selection looking to the nature and requirement of work and appointment to be given. This court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of the expert body and suggest any other criteria. Since the whole selection process is ov...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Amar Singh Kishan Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN680(Raj)
At the out set, learned counsel for the assessee respondent brought to our notice that identical issue has been considered by this court in the case of CIT v. Jain Construction Co. , wherein, this court has taken a view that inspite of the fact that N.P. rate has been applied, the assessee is also entitled for deduction of depreciation. This judgment of Jain Construction has also been followed by this court in the case of Bharat Construction Co. v. CIT (D.B. Civil IT Reference No. 55 of 1998, dated 13-9-2001).2. Following the consistent view of this court, we see no reason to interfere in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed....
Sukh Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2128; 2004(1)WLC501
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed seeking the relief to struck down the proviso lo Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short, 'the Act, 1971') quashing the advertisement and the corrigendum and directing the respondents to fill up the posts by issusing fresh advertisement. Since both these writ petitions involve identical questions of law and facts, they are being deciding by this common order taking SBCWP No. 1905/2001, Sukh Ram and Ors. v. Stale of Rajasthan and Ors., as the leading case.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the writ petition are that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 31.3.2001 for direct recruitment on the post of Teachers Grade II against the vacancies for the year 2000-2001. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioners submitted their applications. However, a corrigendum was issued declaring all the vacancies of 2000-2001 reserved for the members of Schedule Castes/Scheduled...
Bhanwar Lal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1092; 2004(1)WLC656
Prasad, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of suspension Annexure P/7 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 25.6.2003. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the basis of two fold arguments.3. First argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules') provides that before any action in initiated against the petitioner, the opinion is required to be framed by the State Government and that opinion can only be based on the basis of the preliminary enquiry which admittedly was not held in the present case. Therefore, there being no basis available to the State Government to frame opinion, the enquiry could not have been initiated against the petitioner. That being the position, the initiation of enquiry itself is bad in the eye of law. Consequently, no order of suspension could have been passed aga...
Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Sawai Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1096; 2004WLC(Raj)UC373
Goyal, J.1. The fact in brief giving rise to this civil miscellaneous appeal are that the plaintiff-appellants and proforma respondents No. 7 to 11 filed a suit for pre-emption and permanent injunction with an application making a prayer for temporary injunction, with the averments that late Raja Laxman Singhji sold Plot No. C-1 on 8.3.1957 to one Kamal Singh and sold Plot No. C-2 on 11.2.1957 to one Smt. Prem Kumari. Smt. Prem Kumari sold this plot on 14.5.1962 to Kallimullah. Thereafter, the plaintiffs purchased this plot vide registered sale deed dated 12.7.2000 from the legal heirs of Kallimullah. The defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 sold the plot No. C-1 to the defendant-respondent No. 6 Vide two registered sale deeds dated 11.7.2002 and 18.7.2002.2. The plaintiffs have there windows, Roshandan and Nalas towards Plot No. C-1 and there is a common way of both Plot No. C-1 and No. C-2. Plot No. C-1 was lying vacant. The legal representatives of late Kallimullah were enjoying easemen...
Manik Singh and ors. Vs. Kumawat Panchayat Mandi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Raj140; 2004WLC(Raj)UC576
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. By the impugned order dated 25-1-1996, the trial Court refused to take on record the written statement and the counter claim.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit as representatives of members of Kumawat Caste under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC. It appears that initially plaintiffs impleaded one defendant Trilokram. On application filed by the members of the said caste, the Court allowed the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC and permitted the applicants to be impleaded as defendants. Thereafter, one application for review was filed by one of the defendants which was dismissed by the Court and thereafter several opportunities were granted to the defendants to file the written statement. Even the Court granted opportunity to the defendants to file written statement on payment of cost and ultimately, by order dated 26-10-1995, the defendants right to file written statement was closed. Before the next date, the defendants submitted writt...
Sohan Lal and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Das and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj33; 2004(1)WLC451
ORDERB. Prasad, J. 1. This revision has been filed by the petitioners claiming that the trial Court has erred in ordering the petitioners to pay Court-fees on the entire amount for which the petitioners have suffered damages. A suit was filed by plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 3,86,540/-. The plaintiffs had alleged that they had agreed to purchase four plots situated in Vivekanand Colony. Near Industrial Area, Jodhpur from the defendants under an agreement dated 17-10-95 and paid a sum of Rs. 2,51,000/- as advance. The date fixed for registration of sale deed was 15-1-96. The area of the plots was 1200 sq. yards.2. The present suit has been filed for returning the money paid because the plaintiffs had not purchased the plots as the defendants had failed to produce Income-tax clearance certificate and have also not deposited the development charges. It has been claimed by the defendant/petitioners that the case of the plaintiffs was wrong. No Income-tax Clearance Certificate was required...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Bheru Lal Menaria and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1082; 2004(1)WLC585
Balia, J.1. The respondent-petitioner Bheru Lal Menaria, who was an employee of respondent non petitioner No. 2 Rajasthan Sahitya Academy filed the writ petition claiming the following reliefs:-'(b) Respondent State Government may kindly be directed to approve the various resolutions dated 1.5.87, 15.4.96, 15.5.98, 16.7.99 and 17.7.99 passed/resolved by the Sanchalika/Saraswati Sabha of the Rajasthan Sahitya Academy, Udaipur.(c) Impugned decision communicated vide Annexure P/13 may kindly be quashed and State Government may kindly be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and Academy in the light of various representations after giving the opportunity of hearing to employees of the academy and its union;(d) Respondents may kindly be directed to enforce the pension scheme for the petitioner and employees of Rajasthan Sahitya Academy from the date of its first resolution/when RSR was made applicable.(e) Petitioner's pension case may kindly be prepared and sent to Pension Autho...
Sohan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2164; 2004(1)WLC675
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. As many as 9 accused were indicted for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 24/1997 for having committed murder of Girdhari. Learned Judge vide judgment dated November 23, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellants Sohan Lal, Kamruddin, Kallu, Asuddin, Rahmat Khan, Mauj Khan and Rahmuddin Khan as under: -Kallu: To suffer Imprisonment for life and U/S. 302 IPC fine of Rs. 1.000/-, in default to further suffer One Year RigorousImprisonment.U/S. 447 IPC To suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment.U/S. 148 IPC To suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment.U/S. 325/149 IPC To suffer Two Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer three Months Simple Imprisonment.U/S. 324/149 IPC To suffer One and a half Year RigorousImprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in defaultto further suffer Three Months SimpleImprisonment.U/S. 323/149 IPC To suffer Six Months Simple Imprisonment. Sohan Lal, Mauj Khan & A...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. C.A.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1414; 2003(1)WLC310
ORDER'This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulum Bench, in O.A. No. 649/90 dated 30th September, 1991. Though the appeal challenges the order in its entirety, Mr. Goswami learned counsel for the appellants fairly stated that the appeal is now confined only to the payment of back-wages ordered to be given by the Tribunal.By the order under appeal, the Tribunal has allowed the application which challenged the Railway Board Circular dated 15/17 September, 1964. The said Circular stated:'No arrears on this account shall be payable as he did not actually shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher posts.'Consequent to the deletion of the above clause further directions were given. Learned counsel submits that the clause, which has been directed to be removed, is in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Virender Kumar, General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi v. Avinash Chandra Chadha and Ors. (1990) 2 SCR 769. This Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »