Rajasthan Court March 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.
R.P. Gaur (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1894
Govind Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, a Junior Specialist (Surgery) with the Department of Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, by this petition for writ is giving challenge to the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by the disciplinary authority, dismissing him from service as a consequent to an inquiry conducted as per Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958').2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner while working at Upgraded Primary Public Health Centre, Abu Road, as Junior Specialist (Surgery), submitted a letter dated 11.6.1996 to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sirohi to get his service record and service book completed as he was intending to seek voluntary retirement from service. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by a letter dated 17.7.1996 informed the petitioner that grant of voluntary retirement from service shall not be possible as a disc...
Smt. Vimla Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj109; RLW2009(4)Raj3050
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioner Smt. Vimla Vyas, having been elected as Member of the Municipal Board. Merta City and then as Chairperson of the said Municipal Board; but having been removed from the Office of Chairperson and as Member of the Board after a judicial enquiry and having also been debarred from contesting the elections for next six years, challenges such action of the State Government by way of this writ petition.2. Briefly put, the background facts and aspects of the matter are that the petitioner Smt. Vimla Vyas, after being elected as a Member of the Municipal Board, Merta City, came to be elected to the office of the Chairperson of the said Municipal Board. The petitioner was, however, put under suspension by an order made by the State Government on 15-11-2006 (Annex. 1) in contemplation of enquiry under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 ('the Act of 1959'). Aggrieved of such suspension order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition to th...
Trilok Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2626
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging notice of election dated 26.02.2009 (Annex.-3) praying that the respondents may be restrained from conducting election to the post of Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Marwar Junction (District Pall).2. According to brief facts of the case, the petitioner is elected member of Panchayat Samiti, Marwar Junction from Ward No. 5. In the Panchayat Samiti, he was elected Up Pradhan. At present, however, the petitioner is holding charge of Pradhan since, as per the petitioner, Kesa Ram who was elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, subsequently, contested the election for Member of the State Legislative Assembly and he was elected MLA, therefore, Shri Kesa Ram resigned the post of Pradhan, and the petitioner who was Up Pradhan was given charge of Pradhan.3. The petitioner is assailing the validity of Annex.-3 on the ground that without conducting election of the Ward from which Shri Kesa Ram was elected as member of...
Cwt Vs. Manna Lal Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN448(Raj)
1. Following questions have been referred by the Tribunal for our answer in RA No. 1606/Del/1984 for the assessment year 1976-77:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the tax liability of Rs. 10,76,380 resulting on account of settlement pertaining to the assessment years 1958-59 to 1971-72 arrived at with the Commissioner on 24-3-1975 was allowable as a deduction under Section 2(m)(iii) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that M/s Hazarimal Milapchand Soorana was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Explanation to Section 5(1)(xxxi) and as such the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 5(1)(xxxi) of WT Act, 1957?.2. Brief facts relevant to the first question are that in the assessment year 1976-77, assessee claimed deduction of income-tax liability of Rs. 10,76,380 and wealth-tax liability of Rs. 1,143 pertaining to the asses...
Mineral Exploration Corporation of India Vs. Bhanwar Singh Rathore and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ679Raj
Ashok Parihar and G.S. Sarraf, JJ.1. The respondent No. 1 concerned workman was employed as unskilled, skilled labour intermittently on different projects for the period between October 21, 1982 till August, 1991. When his services were lastly retrenched on completion of Basantgarh Copper Project vide order dated August 29, 1991, the same came to be challenged by the concerned workman in the writ petition filed before this Hon'ble Court relying on an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur on February 23, 1980, The learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition vide order dated November 28, 1998 set aside the termination order and directed the present appellant to reinstate the concerned workman with full back wages. The learned single Judge held that the termination notice was in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the settlement and the award passed by the Tribunal.2. As has already been referred above, there is no dispute that the concerned workman was em...
Mukesh @ Manish Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3000
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Girish Khandelwal Advocate on behalf of the applicant pertaining to F.I.R. No. 267/08 of Police Station Kherli (Alwar) in the offence under Section 302 of IPC.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the FIR of this case was lodged after a delay of five days of the occurrence on 14.10.2008, whereas, the occurrence of this case is alleged to have taken place on 9.10.2008. While drawing my attention to the facts as enumerated in the police report, the learned Counsel contended that the deceased entered in the petitioner's house and endeavoured to ravish her sister during night hours. Having heard the screams of the sister, he had his brother got up. The petitioner assaulted upon the head of the deceased but the deceased succ...
Chaudhary Construction Company Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN381
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsels.2. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 01.06.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur who while allowing the application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 made the arbitration award dt. 26.03.1999 a rule of Court, however, reduced the rate of interest from 18% per annum as awarded by the Arbitrator to 9% per annum pendente lite from 25.03.1996 to the date of payment in the impugned order.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contractor urged that the Court had no power to reduce the rate of interest from 18% to 9% per annum without assigning any reason in the impugned order. Unless the arbitration award itself is found to be wrong so as to not to make a rule of Court, the learned District Judge could not reduce the rate of interest while not disturbing the amount of arbitration award itself. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.L. Gupta Construction (P) Ltd. ...
Vijay Solvex Ltd. and Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2009
Reported in: [2009]185TAXMAN274(Raj)
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. At joint request, both these petitions were heard together. These petitions have been filed assailing respective assessments made by assessing authority for the year 2006-07 vide order dt.31/12/2008 (Ann.1).2. Petitioners have tried to convince this Court that apart from violation of principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity of hearing being denied by assessing authority while making impugned assessments, even on merits, as well, material on record has not been properly appreciated and impugned assessments made by assessing authority particularly with regard to deemed dividends is not as per requirement of law and without following procedures as provided under law, impugned assessments have been made.3. Counsel for petitioners-Company submits that there are circulars issued by the respondents giving facilities to the assessee that if the demand under assessment is double the original computed, the same is either stayed pending appeal or appellate autho...
i.K. Goyal Vs. Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Tribu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN167
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Both these writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the Tribunal. In SBCWP No. 6132/2002, Tribunal to the extent denied that benefit of selection scale to the petitioner the period of three years as provided in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Learned Counsel for the petitoner has argued that judgment of the Tribunal has thus restricted claim of the petitioner only for the period of three years from the date of filing of the application whereas Tribunal started functioning in the year 1995 and the application in SBCWP No. 6132/2002 was filed in 1998 and in SBCWP No. 4437/2002 in 1999. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that even if the Government for its employees issued circular dt. 25.01.1992 providing for grant of selection scale on completion of 9 years for its inability to grant them promotion and with a view to remove the stagnation however, Non-Government Educational Institutions did not grant such benefits not only to petitioners but also...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›