Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(1)WLN580
V.K. Singhal, J.1. A preiminary objection has been raised that the petitioner society has no locus standi to file the writ petition as neither the copy of the resolution has been submitted nor the copies of the agreement to sale on the basis of which the right is claimed have been filed and the writ petition is not maintainable as no title was transferred in favour of the society and even according to the averments made in the writ petition there was an agreement to sale only.2. Mr. Agarwal appearing on behalf of khatedars has submitted that there is no valid agreement to sale and civil suits are pending on the basis thereof.3. Mr. Mahendra Singh on behalf of. Rajasthan Housing Board stated that in the so called agreement with the Rajasthan Housing Board, which was not approved by the State Government, the society has filed the civil suit in the Court of District Judge for enforcement of the agreement. It is also submitted that the sale agreements are alleged to be executed in the year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(1)WLC767; 1996(1)WLN73
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging his suspension order dated 5.11.1994 (Annx. 12) to the writ petition on various grounds.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.S. Singhvi at length as well as learned counsel Mr. P.C. Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.L. Jangid for respondents No. 2 and 3.3. An identical question came up for consideration before me in the case of Kishan Singh v. state of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 284 of 1996, decided on 24.1.1996, where' the interpretation of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was dealt with. It would be pertinent to quote paragraph 9 of the said decision for ready reference:Since suspension of a delinquent officer or an employee pending disciplinary proceedings is not treated as punishment, therefore, a writ petition is entertainable only is rarest of rare cases on the valid grounds evolved b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)131CTR(Raj)328; [1997]225ITR178(Raj); 1996WLC(Raj)UC196; 1996(1)WLN23
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, by its order dated September 23, 1991, for the assessment year1986-87, referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing that investment allowance may be allowed on X-ray machines, ultrasound scanner, foetal monitor and air-conditioning equipment as provided under Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) read with Section 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, these machines and equipments can legally be called machinery or plant installed in a small-scale industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing as provided in Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) read with Section 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. The assessee, Trinity Hospital, Jodhpur, is a registered firm and is runni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2067; 1996(2)WLC215
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question of law for adjudication by the Larger Bench :-'Whether the view taken by this Court in Dharampal's case is to be followed or the view taken by this Court in Raju's case be followed.'2. The view taken by the single Bench of this Court in Dharmapal's case is that 'in view of the statutory bar of filing second revision laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 397(3) Cr. P. C, the party cannot be allowed to take recourse of Section 482 Cr. P. C. and thereby circumvent the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr. P. C. particularly when none of the conditions required for the exercise of inherent powers is present.' While in Raju's case, another single Bench of this Court has taken the view as under :-'It appears that this three Judges Bench decision was not brought to the notice of Their Lordships, who decided Rajan Kumar's case, (1990 Cri LR (SC) 602). Hence in spite of Rajan Kumar's case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(2)WLN342
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. All these petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the investigation in pursuance of the crime registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(l)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the investigation was on its way at the initial stage, the petitioners filed these petitions and succeeded in getting the following stay order:In the meanwhile the parties shall maintain status quo, as obtaining today.2. At the outset, it may be stated that in the respective reports there are serious allegation of mis-appropriation and mis-use of money granted by the Central Social Welfare Board for social welfare schemes. This amount was in lacs of rupees. It also contained complaint of falsification of accounts and documents prepared with a view to show that the amount given in grant were utilised by the concerned organisation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(2)WLN111
P.K. Palli, J.1. Respondent no. 3 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. invited proposals through applications for appointing Distributor in the town of Partabnagar Dist. Chittorgarh. These applications were invited in open category.2. After scrutiny the persons who had applied were called for interview by respondent no. 4, i.e. Oil Selection Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioners who had applied in consequence to the advertisement appeared for the interview on 8th July, 1994 and vide communication dated 21st September, 1994 the petitioners were informed about their non-selection. It is said in the petition that respondent no. 5 was selected though he was not qualified to be considered for the Distributor-ship.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per eligibility criteria mentioned in Annex. 1 as Item No. 2 the persons applying were required to be the resident of the concerned district during preceding five years. Though respondent no. 5 belong to District Chitto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(2)WLN495
M.P. Singh, J.1. Ramesh appellant No. 1, has been awarded life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 of the IPC. Diwan Singh, appellant No. 2 and Darbe, appellant No. 3 have been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Bhag Singh and Sumer, the other co-accused parsons have been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana (Bharatpur).2. Gyan Singh (Gyani), brother of deceased Lala Ram lodged a F.I.R. on 14.2.1989 at about 2p.m. It was stated that on 13.2.1989 at about 8a.m. he alongwith his brother Lala Ram went to the well for irrigating their fields in which standing wheat crop was getting dried up. On the well, their engine as well as the engine of Darbe accused were installed. Darbe had been irrigating his fields for the last fifteen days. Lala Ram told Darbe to stop his engine and permit him to take water to his field. On this some trouble arose and exchange of not word...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2155; 1996(1)WLC591
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28th February, 1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khetri in a case under Section 341/342/349/323/304 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arising out of FIR No. 16/94 registered with Police at Khetri, whereby the police on investigation had found that no case is made out against the accused and had accordingly drawn-up the Final Report dropping proceedings against the accused and closing the investigation which was accepted by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had forwarded the aforesaid complaint to the concerned Police Station for investigation wherein an FIR was registered against the accused as referred to above, and the Police ultimately filed a Final Report in the matter.2. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ616; 1996WLC(Raj)UC472
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance of the petitioner is that it was enjoined upon the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. against the petitioner in view of the fact that earlier in the year 1990 also the property which is subject matter of dispute was subject to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in which earlier an attachment order has been passed but was subsequently vacated by the Court on the ground that there was no breach of peace. In revision which was preferred against the order of the learned S.D.M. dated 18-9-1990, the said revision was dismissed by the revisional Court on the ground that since civil suits concerning the subject matter of the property were already pending before the competent Court for adjudication, there was no possibility of breach of peace and consequently on the basis of prima facie view of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(2)WLN314
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned P.P. for the state.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel, that Kana Ram Jat (Bijrania) R/o Hudil, district Nagaur mentioned in the First Information Report is a different person than the petitioner, as such, his case becomes at par to that of other accused persons who have been released on bail on the ground that their names do not find place in F.I.R. Learned Counsel contended that co-accused Shankar Lal and Shyam Lal have been released on ball by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that their names are not mentioned in the FIR and that no identification parade was arranged to get them identified further that lathis were recovered from their possession and the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing. It is found that Kana Ram Jat (Bijrania) R/o Hudil is a different person.3. Learned P.P. after seeing the case diary gave a statement that as per the investigating Agency Kana Ram Jat of Hudil is a...
Tag this Judgment!