Rajasthan Court February 2009 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.
Managing Committee (the) and ors. Vs. Ram Phool Meena and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj2997
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on similar set of facts, the common judgment passed by learned Single Judge is under challenge, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. As has come on record, the respondent-employee was appointed on temporary basis as a Gardner by the appellant Management. A decision was taken by the Managing Committee on 21.5.1994 to abolish three adhoc posts including, Steno Typist, Assistant and that of Gardner. Consequently, a notice was issued to all the three employees including the respondent-employee as well who was working on the post of Gardner on 1.7.1994 in regard to termination of their services w.e.f. 31st July, 1994.3. The respondent-employee challenged the order dated 1.7.1994 before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutional Tribunal ('the Tribunal' in short). In view of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-employee was continued in service. The Tribunal finally allowed the appeal...
Smt. Kesar Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Raj)621
1. This reference has been made by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in R.A. No. 46/Jp/1987 arising out of the ITA No. 1178/Jp/1985 pertaining to asst. yr. 1972-73 to this Court referring following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:1. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not annulling assessment order and notice of demand for the asst. yr. 1972-73 when the assessment order and notice of demand were made in the name of a dead person ?2. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not followed decision of the Supreme Court reported in CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff : (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC) cited at the time of hearing ?3. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not annulling the assessment order and notice of demand on account of insertion of Section 292B in the IT Act, 1961 ?4. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not annulling the assessment order because of not bringing on records all the four legal representatives by the ITO particularly...
Jasveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1945
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by Shri AK Shahdadpuri, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Jasveer Singh pertaining to Criminal Case No. 42/2007 registered in the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Kota (South).2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner, on 16th May, 2008, could not appear in the Court on account of his illness and he has been summoned through a Warrant of arrest. Hence, he may be released on anticipatory bail.4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition.5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the bail order dated 7th January, 2008 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge No. I, Kota, it is not...
Sajjan Singh Vs. State Public Information Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2660
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 25.01.2006, 28.03.2006 & 12.10.2006 whereby he was denied copies of certain pages contained in the Yatinder Singh, Removal of Pay Anomaly Committee Report. According to the letter dated 25.01.2006, the said copies were denied on the following grounds:(i) Section 8(1)(a) of the Act- on ground of prejudicial effecting the economic interest of the State.(ii) Section (1)(i) of the Act- on ground that the matter is still to be placed before the Cabinet.(iii) Section 8(1)(c) of the Act- on grounds of breach of privilege of State Legislative because a copy of the report has been requested by MLA but has not been provided to them on grounds of it being under consideration of Government.2. Aggrieved from the letter dated 25.01.2006, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary and Development Commissioner and Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the Act', for short). But, vide...
Bhairu Lal Buddhgai Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(33)WLN215
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The short controversy involved in this writ petition is that vide order dt. 17.08.1976 the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC cum Steno in Rajasthan Handloom Development Corporation, Jaipur in the pay scale of Rs. 110-230 and vide order dt. 17.03.1977 he was also given appointment under Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited on the post of Stenographer Grade-II in the pay scale of 185-7-220-EB-8-292. The petitioner was granted first selection grade w.e.f. 25.01.1992 and vide order dt. 20.01.1996, he was granted second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service w.e.f. 01.12.1995. Subsequently, vide order dt. 31.07.1989, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Stenographer w.e.f. 20.08.1976.2. After completion of 27 years of service, the petitioner was entitled to get third selection grade for which the Government has also issued order dt. 18.07.2006 for approval of grant of third selection scale to the petitioner, but instead of granting third selection...
Commissioner (the), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and ors. Vs. Hem Chan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1301
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 26.9.08 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur On short 'the tribunal' hereinafter) in contempt Petition No. 17/08, whereby contempt proceedings have been initiated against the contemnor, appellant No. 1 herein for alleged disobedience of order dated 12.8.2000 passed by the learned tribunal in O.A No. 72/99.2. By the said order, the learned tribunal while giving liberty to the contemnor to comply with the orders of the tribunal within a period of two months and dispensing with his personal presence during the said period, has further ordered that if the order is not complied with within the stipulated period, the contemnor shall remain present in person and further proceedings shall be initiated against him.3. The brief facts in nutshell are that the respondent No. 1, an employee of the petitioner Kendriya Sangathan retired from the service. Prior to joining the services of the peti...
Ashok Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2467; RLW2010(1)Raj309
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 18th December, 2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Beawar, in Sessions Case No. 4/2002 (26 of 1995), therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 10th February, 1995 P.W. 3 Karim Bux s/o Dhanna Singh lodged a written report (Exhibit P-3) at Police Station Sadar, Beawar, stating therein that on 9th February, 1995 at about 8.00 p.m. when he was returning to his home after natural call, he saw his nephew Shokin s/o Rasool, Shall S/o Gheesa and Ashok s/o Chhotu, going towards their agriculture field situated near 'talab-wala-kua'. He asked them about their visit; thereupon Shaft replied that they are going to oust 'Rojda', (a kind of animal), from their agriculture field; on hearing this, he went to his house and slept. On the next day morning his brother Rasool came to him and t...
Parimal Prasad Vs. Yogesh Saini and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN111
Guman Singh, J.1. The learned Counsel for both the sides agreed for final disposal of the appeal at admission stage.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been preferred by the injured Parimal Prasad for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Judge, ADJ (F.T.) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dt. 13.12.2005 whereby a sum of Rs. 84,000/- was awarded to the injured appellant by way of compensation for 28.22% disability sustained on account of the injuries caused in the accident.4. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only.5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to award the adequate compensation for loss of earning as Rs. 22,000/- has been awarded on this count while the amount should have been assessed as per second schedule to the M.V. Act. It is further submitted that even if he is treated as employed and placed on stable job, he is going to be retired at the age of 55-60, th...
Desraj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN205
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the prayer (A) in the writ petition, however, submits that the petitioner has continuously worked and rendered satisfactory services with the respondents and therefore, the respondents may be directed to confer the status of semi-permanent on completion of two years of service from the date of his initial appointment and on completion of 10 years services, the permanent status. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on decision of this Court in Rajendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SBCW No. 2833/05 decided on 21.09.2005 which came to be affirmed by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar and Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 234/07 decided on 23.01.2007, wherein the Division Bench while considering Rule 3 of the Work Charge Rules, 1964 held that the rule is plain. It came into force in the year 1964 and envisaged that...
Yusuf Baig and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj343
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Both the aforementioned appeals are directed against the common order dated 24th June, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Kota in Sessions Case No. 129/2001, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The trial Court, while acquitting the accused Wahid Baig S/o Mazid Baig, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as under:Name of Accused Under ImprisonmentSection1. Yusuf Baig 302, IPC To undergo imprisonment forlife and a fine of Rs. 1000/-;in default of payment of fine,to further undergo 1 month's RI452, IPC To undergo 3 yearsRI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-;in default, to further undergo1 month's RI324, IPC To undergo 1 year's RI2. Bablu @ 302, IPC To undergo imprisonment forBabalia life and a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of paymentof fine, to further undergo 1month's RI452, IPC To undergo 3 years RI and a fineof Rs. 1000/-; in default, tofurther undergo 1 month's RI324, IPC life and a fine of Rs.1000/-; in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »