Rajasthan Court April 2006 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.
Tej Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2593
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. On the allegation of causing death of Lakhan Singh by administering poison, the appellants were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City District Karauli, who vide judgment dated April 28, 2003 convicted and sentenced them as under:Man Singh @ Manak:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.Tej SinghUnder Section 302/34 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.2. As per the prosecution story Mukesh Chawla Sub Inspector (PW. 16) on July 16, 2000 reached Primary Health Centre Hindaun City and 9.20 PM recorded parcha bayan (Ex. P. 7) of Lakhan Singh (now deceased) who was admitted in Medical Ward. In the Parcha Bayan Lakhan Singh stated that while he had gone to his field to keep a watch, Man Singh along with three-four persons came to the field and pus...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jupiter Industries and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2704; 2006(4)WLC776
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In this reference, the following question has been referred by the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for decision by this Court as per the direction of this Court vide order dated 14.7.2003 in D.B. Civil Tax Reference Petition No. 4/2003:Whether the CEGAT can allow refund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 when it was specifically not allowed by the Sub-rule (2) of the rule 96ZB of Central Excise Rules, 19443. The facts leading to this reference are that the respondent assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of stainless steel pattas/patties which are subject to Central Excise Duty under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act. The Question relates to levy of duty by the Revenue for the period of 3 months commencing from 1st June, 1998 to 31st August, 1998 as compounded duty in respect of cold rolling machines which were ceased to operate w.e.f. 29th May, 1998 and were not in operation at a...
Sayra Devi and ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2686
R.P. Vyas, J.1. Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the same judgment and relate to the same incident, they are, therefore, decided by this common judgment.2. The fact giving rise to the instant appeals are that Ghewar Chand, Madan Lal, Kishan Lal, Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar were going from Jodhpur to Balotra (Pachpadra) on 31.10.1980 in a bus belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. When the bus reached at village Dhawa, a strike call was given by the Corporation employees and, therefore, the bus did not proceed ahead from Dhawa and left the passengers at Dhawa Bus Stand.3. A jeep bearing registration No. RJT 340, owned by Pukh Raj, was coming from Jodhpur and was going towards Jasol, stopped at the bus stand, Dhawa. A request was made to the owner of the jeep Pukh Raj to give them lift as they will not be able to get some other conveyance. They requested him to leave them at Pachpadra and Balotra respectively. Pukh Raj agreed and allowed them to sit in the ...
Prithvi Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1713; 2006(2)WLC639
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner was invalidated from services on the ground of disability w.e.f. 22.11.1961. Petitioner continued to get disability pension as per recommendations of the Medical Boards, held from time to time till 25.5.1990, The disability pension was discontinued w.e.f. 26.5.1990 on the ground of disability been assessed as nil percent by the Medical Board. Petitioner was also informed accordingly in regard to discontinuance of disability pension w.e.f. 26.5.1990 vide order dated 29.11.1990. Though the petitioner could have filed an appeal against the above order within six months, however, the appeal was preferred only in March, 2003. The same was rejected by the concerning authorities Vide letter dated 11.12.2003. In the present writ petition, filed in December, 2004, the petitioner has prayed for restoration of disability pension w.e.f. 26.5.1990 and in the alternative, allowing at least the special pension.2. Respondents in their reply have given a detailed chart in...
All India I.T.D.C. Employees' Union, Branch Officer, Hotel Jaipur Asho ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR798]; (2006)IIILLJ271Raj; RLW2006(2)Raj1462; 2006(3)WLC120
Ashok Parihar, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the notification dated 9.1.1997 issued by respondent No. 1, the corporation informing the employees working in one of their units namely Hotel Jaipur Ashok, Jaipur that the employees getting salary upto Rs. 6500/- shall be covered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act and get benefits therein. The concerned employees were directed to fill up requisite forms at the earliest. This Court, while issuing notices, stayed the operation of the notification dated 9.1.1997 vide order dated 15.4.1997. 2. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy under the exact similar circumstances has already been decided at the main seat in case of All India, I.T.D.C. Employees Union v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors. 1999 WLC (Raj.) U.C. Page 713. This Court while disposing the writ petition filed by the Association challenging the same notification issued in regard to the employees of Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel, ...
Madan Lal and anr. Vs. Rent Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2498
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioners seeks to challenge the order dated 13.07.2005 whereby the trial Court has refused to take photographs, negatives, water and electricity bills and house tax receipts of the shop whereon the business is being carried out by Satish Kumar, the son of the applicant landlord.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed an application for eviction under Section 9 of the Rajas than Rent Control Act, 2001 on the ground of personal bona fade necessity of his son and subletting. The petitioners filed reply to the aforesaid application. Along with the reply, some documents were also filed but due to inadvertence the aforesaid documents and partnership deed were not filed. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) read with 151, CPC with the prayer that leave may be granted to take the aforesaid documents on record.3. The respondent-plaintiff filed reply to t...
Ghasita and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2408; 2006(3)WLC180
K.C. Sharma, J.1. This appeal by appellants arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.1.1985 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner:Appellant Ghasita:For offence Under Section 307 IPC:Five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.Appellants Handu and Juharu:For offence under Section 307/149 IPCEach to undergo 2l/z years rigorous' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment.All the three appellants:For offence under Section 148 IPCEach to undergo 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default thereof, to further undergo one month's imprisonment.2. At the very outset, it may be stated that appellant No. 2. namely, Handu has died during pendency of this appeal as is evident from the endorse...
Murlidhar Sharma Vs. Addl. Registrar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2970; 2006(4)WLC747
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.9.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition was dismissed.3. The appellant was at the relevant time a Pax Manager of Damdi Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Non-petitioner No. 3. Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide impugned order dated 19.2.1990, after holding the inquiry under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 against the petitioner-appellant directed recovery of Rs. 7,500/- with 18% interest w.e.f. 8.7.78 and imposed penalty of Rs. 50/-.4. On appeal, Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur vide his order dated 22.1.94 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar and remanded the case back to the Assistant Registrar to decide the case afresh. By order dated 22.1.94 the Additional Registrar held that the action taken against the petitioner-appel-lant by instituting an enquiry on 23.12.89 was barred by time under Section ...
Jb Modi and Bros Vs. Mukesh Chopra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR404]; RLW2006(2)Raj1458; 2007(2)SLJ308(Raj); 2006(3)WLC629
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Apart from challenging the interim award dated 21.3.1986 passed by the Labour Court, Kota, holding the respondent No. 1 the concerned employee as 'workman' under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1947' as also the Reference made by the Government of Rajasthan as maintainable and the departmental enquiry held against the concerned employee to be fair and proper as also the order dated 18.3.1991 passed by the Labour Court, rejecting the review application, the petitioner has also challenged the final award dated 30.3.1992, by which, the concerned employee has been ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including back wages.2. The brief facts of the case are that the concerned employee was appointed as Medical Representative vide order dated 2.2.1976. A charge sheet was served on the concerned employee on 23.4.1982. After holding departmental enquiry, the services of the concerned employee w...
Ravindra Yadav (Dr.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1591; 2006(4)WLC694
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on similar set of facts, same relief has been claimed by the petitioners, all the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. The petitioners working as Medical Officer on adhoc urgent temporary basis, are seeking exemption from appearing in the screening test held by the respondent-Commissioner for short listing the number of candidates to be called for interview for regular selection to the post of Medical Officer. Some of the petitioners have also claimed regularisation of their services on the basis of working on the post on adhoc temporary basis for the last so many years. In some writ petitions, notification dated 10.10.2002 has also been challenged by which certain amendments have been made in different Service Rules to the extent that vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates remaining unfilled shall be carried forward till suitable candidates of the above categories are available an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »