Rajasthan Court April 2007 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.
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Dr. (Smt.) Shipra Saha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2689
Rajash Balia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.12.2006 allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5380/2006 preferred by the respondent.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was in the service of the State of Rajasthan and was inducted as Lecturer in the Government College, Dholpur since 1981. Her first appointment was on ad hoc basis. Later on, she was selected by RPSC. While she was posted as Lecturer in Government College, Barmer in 1994, she married Dr. Sangat Singh, who too was working as Lecturer in Government College, Barmer in 1998. By communication dated 9.10.2002 the petitioner was called upon to explain the allegation against her that she has contacted marriage with Dr. Sangat Singh, who was already married while his First wife was alive. She replied reminded to this effect also on 25.10.2002.3. The respondent-petitioner submitted in response that she has been knowing Dr. Sangat Singh since about four years before ma...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shanker Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj563
K.C. Sharma, J.1. This is an application for restoration which indicates gross latches on the part of the appellant-State. The special appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge upholding the award passed by the labour Court. Kota was filed with certain defects. Which were not rectified even after two years of the filing of the special appeal. The special appeal was filed in the year 2002 and thereafter the matter was listed for curing the defects in the year 2004 as the defect had not removed within two years. Hence, a peremptory order dated 18.10.2004 was passed by Coordinate Bench to remove the defects within a period of one week. The same also was not complied, as a result of which, the appeal stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order. The appellant-State thereafter did not move in the matter as no application for restoration was filed within the prescribed period of limitation and when the limitation expired, the ap...
Manager, Selection Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR425]; (2008)ILLJ325Raj
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated July 15, 2005 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, Manager against the award of Labour Court, Bhilwara holding it to be a case of illegal retrenchment of the respondent-workman and directing his reinstatement with continuity in; service and also back wages on the average monthly remuneration in the year preceding the date of retrenchment.2. Subject of the industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court was whether the termination of the services of Rameshwar Lal workman w.e.f September 14,1999 is valid and if not to what relief the workman is entitled to.3. The claim of the workman was that he is a workman of Selection Synthetics Ltd. since November 13, 1997 and his services were terminated by oral order on September 14, 1999. No notice as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act was given prior to effecting the termina...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mohd. Hanif and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2764
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway and the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Jaipur Bench, Jaipur on 22.12.2000 by which the order of punishment of removal from service passed against the respondent-applicant Mohammed Hanif has been set aside holding it as illegal, unjust and against the principle of natural justice.2. The facts of the case in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition is that the respondent- applicant-Mohammed Hanif while working on the post of driver in the Western Railway was charge sheeted for violation of Rule 2.06 of G & S Rules, 1981, Rule 3 (1) (2) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and Para 1007 (5) (6) and (7) of Operating Manual Western Railway alleging disobedience of rules and orders for which an enquiry was co...
Bakhtawar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3365
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.08.2004 passed by the respondent department whereby application of the petitioner for allotment of mine is rejected.2. According to facts of the case set out in the writ petition, the respondent Department issued notification dated 20.10.1998 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 23.02.1998 whereby certain area was declared free for grant of mining lease for mineral 'dolomite. The said notification was issued in exercise of power under Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 vide Annex.-1 to the writ petition.3. Upon perusal of the said notification it is revealed that certain land earlier reserved for prospecting and mining was declared free by the government for grant of mining leases and it was provided vide the notification that for the purpose of issuing sanction whatever amount the State Government has spent on the area the same shall...
Chetna Dadhich and anr. Vs. Mehrunnisa and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj127
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.4.2006 passed 'by Rent Tribunal, Kota whereby his application for dismissing the petition filed by the respondent landlord for eviction of the petitioners tenant from their premises on account of personal bona fide was rejected. Application was filed on the ground that the landlord had already earlier filed a suit for eviction against the tenant on the ground of default which was dismissed on 10.4.2003 and appeal there against was pending before this Court.I have heard Shri Mahesh Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Shri Mahesh Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Rent Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating the provisions of Section 32(3)(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 according to which when already earlier suit/appeal between the landlord and tenant in regard to tenanted premises was pending at the time of enforcement of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001,...
Surendra Nath Bhargava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj572
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner, a retired Chief Justice of the High Court, has also to seek remedy before this Court under writ jurisdiction. Petitioner has been denied reimbursement for putting a Cyphe Stent at the time of Angioplasty only on the ground that prior approval or recommendation of the Cardiologist from the government hospital has not been obtained for putting the Cypher Stent. It is not disputed that the petitioner was, otherwise, entitled for reimbursement of putting Cypher Stent. The stand taken by the respondents, on the face of it, appears to be highly unreasonable, hyper technical and nothing but insensitive bureaucratic approach of the concerned authorities. It is for the operating physician or the Surgeon to use his discretion at the time of Angioplasty for putting a normal Stent or a Cypher Stent. He is not supposed to stop the whole process till formal approval or recommendation is received moreso in such emergencies. Since the petitioner was entitled for put...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Shyam Mohan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Raj)219; [2009]313ITR416(Raj); RLW2007(3)Raj2101
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This order shall dispose of the reference made by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for our answer to the following two questions:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of applyingRule 2B(2) of the WT Rules, the onus was on the Revenue to prove that the market value of the closing stock of M/s Rawats Bombay exceeded the value as shown in the firm's accounts by more than 20 per cent ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the finding of AAC that the firm M/s Rawats of Bombay is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Explanation to s.5(1)(xxxi) and consequently in holding that the value of assessee's interest in that firm is exempt under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957 ?2. The aforesaid two questions of law arise from the facts and circumstances that have been stated by the Tribunal in the statement of the case th...
Sujan Mal Gadia and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ194; RLW2007(4)Raj3108
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Sujan Mal Gadia. a partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 Prakash Gadia who claims to be its proprietor have jointly filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 14-5-2002 passed by Executive Engineer (Head Office), Office of the Chief Engineer PWD, Rajasthan and the further consequential order dated 14-5-2002 passed by the same authority. While in the first order, the request for transferring the registration as a 'A' Class contractor of the Public Works Department made in the name of proprietorship firm M/s. Sujan Mal Gadia in favour of petitioner No. 2 Prakash Gadia was denied, but in the second order, it was directed that the registration of such firm was made in the name of Shri Sajan Mal Gadia as its sole proprietor and with his death on 6-1-90, the registration cannot be transferred in favour of Shri Prakash Gadia on the basis of will dated 8-12-88 because the registration as such can be merely treated as a licence and n...
Ghanshyam Das Moolrajani Vs. Enforcement Directorate and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2973; [2008]81SCL260(Raj)
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for mandamus to the effect that the respondents be restrained from continuing with the departmental proceedings initiated against him under Sections 50 and 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 (for short 'the FERA').2. Factual background giving rise to this petition is that the petitioner had set up a business of garment export and he for that purpose incorporated a firm on 17.3.1994 with his nephew, Shri Mukesh Moolrajani. This firm was engaged in the business of exporting garments to foreign countries. The firm however ran into trouble on account of the fact that it failed to realise the remittances of five consignments sent to Hongkong in Nov. & Dec, 1994. The firm had to therefore abandon the business after December 1994 and ultimately it was dissolved in the year 1996. According to the petitioner, the said firm was duped into exporting said goods to certain company in Hongkong by one Shri Ashok Ramchand...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »