Rajasthan Court May 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.
Shyam Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN74
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Since in both the matters controversy involved are similar, therefore, both the writ petitions are decided by this common judgment.3. Both the petitioners submitted that they possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Constable in RAC/Police and in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2 for appointment on the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police/RAC, the petitioners applied. The petitioners were successful in written test and, thereafter, they were called for physical test, wherein also, the petitioners were found physically able for appointment to the post concerned. However, the petitioner Shyam Lal was given only 3 marks in interview inspite of the fact that he secured 43.125 marks in the written test out of 50 marks and 20 marks out of 20 marks in physical fitness test. The another petitioner Madan Gopal secured 40 marks in the written test out of 50 marks and 20 marks out of...
Praveen Kumar and anr. Vs. District Collector and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN135
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dt. 06.07.1996 passed by the District Collector, Udaipur whereby invoking the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short 'CPC' hereinafter) the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation to the respondent No. 2 for alleged disobedience of stay order dt. 24.02.1996 passed by the District Collector, Udaipur in the proceedings under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act of 1953' hereinafter) directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the land in question.2. In revenue village Sukher, some abadi plots were auctioned by Gram Panchayat, Bhuvana. One Shri Shyam Lal S/o Mohan Lal Chitara purchased a plot on 06.02.1983 for consideration of Rs. 7,500/-. Shri Shyam Lal sold the said plot to the petitioner herein by way of registered sale deed. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the District Collector, Udaipur stating the...
Lrs of Shri Dharam Singh Vs. the Chairman-cum-managing Director, Rajas ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN92
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner Shri Dharam Singh (since deceased) represented by his legal representative Smt. Gulab Devi has sought directions to restrain the respondents from putting the petitioner's property situated at A-12, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara to auction for recovery of the loan amount outstanding against his son Shri Kishan Singh.2. The petitioner's son Shri Kishan Singh took some loan from the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation (in short 'RFC') and could not repay the loan, interest and other moneys in terms of the loan agreement. The recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner's son by the RFC under Section 32G of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (in short 'the Act of 1951' hereinafter). Since the petitioner's son failed to make payment of entire outstanding amount despite a notice being served upon him, the RFC made an application to the District Collector (Recovery), Bhilwara for recovery of the amount due as arre...
Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN271
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The plaintiff is aggrieved against the order passed by the two Courts below, one rejecting petitioner's injunction application by order dt. 06.08.2008 and another dismissing his appeal preferred against the order of the trial Court dt. 06.08.2008 vide order dt. 21.11.2008.3. The respondent was directed to file the affidavit before this Court to disclose the width of the Khala/canal/water course whatever, which is moving through the agricultural field of the petitioner. In response to that, the respondents submitted affidavit of the concerned Executive Engineer. The petitioner also submitted his affidavit to counter the affidavit of the said Executive Engineer.4. I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case.5. The plaintiff's own case as pleaded in the plaint was that the plaintiff is Khatedar-tenant of the land referred in the plaint and according to him, no water course/Kh...
Dilip Kumar Vs. the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN243
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner's order of removal from service was found to be illegal by the Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Case No. 114/2000 vide award dt. 17.07.2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court committed error in awarding lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of service.3. I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case.4. It has been found by the Labour Court that the petitioner was removed from service from 01.04.1991 and thereafter, it is alleged that he was taken in service on contract basis from 10.04.1991. The Labour Court also held that the employee petitioner was in other service from 30.05.1993 to 30.06.2000. Since in the facts of the case, if the Labour Court has not granted the relief of reinstatement and back wages, the Labour Court has not committed any error of fact or law as the petitioner was already in service...
Hari Mohan Meena Vs. Prem Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ404; RLW2009(4)Raj3355
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. The application for cancellation of bail-for a bail granted by this Court vide order dated 24-10-2008-has come up for adjudication.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15-6-2006, a FIR under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC was registered against Prem Singh, the accused respondent, at Police Station Shipra Path, Mansarovar Jaipur. During the course of investigation, on 3-7-2006 Prem Singh was arrested. Subsequently, on 29-9-2006, the Police submitted a charge sheet against Prem Singh. Prem Singh moved a bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. But, vide order dated 11-10-2006, the learned Judge dismissed the said bail application. On 18-10-2006, the trial of the criminal case was transferred from the court of District & Sessions Judge to the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Cases) Jaipur. Prem Singh filed his first bail application before this Court. Vide order dated 26-10-2006, this Court dismissed the sa...
Vatan Press, 'Sudarma' Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner/As ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ276Raj; RLW2010(1)Raj297
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.10.2004 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Damages) ('the Commissioner', for short) whereby the learned Commissioner has directed that Rs. 14,32,032/- should be recovered from the petitioner for the period February, 1994 to October, 2001.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner establishment is covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act', for short). It was paying regular contribution from the date of its coverage under Code No. RJ-3350.3. In March, 2004 the petitioner received a notice from the respondent for some delay in payment of contribution and regarding initiation of the proceedings Under Section 14-B of the Act. The petitioner also received a notice dated 29th March, 2004 to appear before the respondent in the proceedings Under Section 14-B of the Act. According to the notice, the hearing was fixed for 15.04.2004. On...
Apex Metchem (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Bench a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Raj)488; [2009]318ITR48(Raj); [2009]184TAXMAN243(Raj)
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. While considering application Under Article 226(3) of Constitution seeking vacation of interim orders dt.23/05/08, this Court vide order dt.16/01/09 observed to finally dispose of the petition at admission stage; hence instant petition was finally heard at joint request.2. Instant petition is directed against order dt.31/03/2008 (Ann.4) in Misc.Appl. 8/JP/2008, whereby Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench ('ITAT, Jaipur') in exercise of powers Under Section 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') re-called its earlier order dt. 29/03/2006 (Ann.1) and further directed both the appeals (ITSSA-105/JP/2004 & 35/JP/2005-Asstt. Year-Block Period 01/04/88 to 23/03/99) to be heard by ITAT Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in terms of order dt. 04/04/05 (Ann.3) of the President ITAT, Mumbai (respondent No. 4).3. Basic issue raised herein is as to whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in re-calling its final order passe...
Sarita and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj275; 2009(3)WLN342
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. Since common question of facts and law relating to the continuation of Vidyarthi Mitras till the candidates regularly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC)/persons regularly selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee are available and further declaring action of the respondents of invoking the contract clause of automatic end of the services of the petitioners as Vidyarthi Mitra on 15.04.2009 is under challenge in all these writ petitions, therefore, all the cases have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The necessary common facts of the case are that all the petitioners have been appointed as Vidyarthi Mitra after 02.06.2008 when a circular was issued by the State Government whereby sanction was granted to implement Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme on account of possible delay in availability of the RPSC selected and further persons recommended by the DPC for promotion on 6,000 posts of Lecture...
Prathvi Raj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN379
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was working as Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer (Flying Squad), Makarana and one other officer Shri R.D. Singh was also holding the post of Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer in Makarana itself. The petitioner's office was inspected and then because of the delinquency, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958. Shri R.D. Singh was also served with the same charge-sheet with difference only of absence from duty of a different date. Rest of the charges are verbatim the same. The petitioner submitted reply to the charges, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.2. The disciplinary authority rejected the petitioner's contention by saying that petitioner did not produce any evidence and observed that from the record, the guilt of the petitioner has been proved. The exact verbatim same order was passed for Shri R.D. Singh by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »