Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on : Jul-17-2002
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ134CAT
1. The above named two applicants, Sarv Shri J.P. Chandelia and R.N.Arvind, who were the senior members of State Administrative Service of Rajasthan, have since been appointed on promotion to Indian Administrative Service (IAS). They are aggrieved on account of in-action on the part of the respondents to give them appointment in IAS against the quota of the year 1992-93 as well as on account of the positive decision of the respondents to assign them the year of Allotment (YOA) as '1988'. Shri R.N. Arvind, is admittedly junior to Shri J.P. Chandelia. By and large, he would swim or sink with the findings and decision which may be arrived at in the case of Sh. J.P.Chandelia. The facts and the controversy in the two OAs overlap. With a view to avoid repetition and for the sake of clarity, it is proposed to decide both these O.As by this common Judgment.2. By way of preface, it may be pointed out that the promotion of the members of the State Civil Service to IAS, is governed by the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-17-2002
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR898]; RLW2003(3)Raj1829; 2002(4)WLN671
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1.This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 11.5.1992 against the (SIC) with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment dated 28.11.1991 (Annex.8) passed by the No. 1-Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, Sri Ganganagar be quashed and set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The respondent No. 2 Tilak Raj filed a claim petition under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1958') before the respondent No. 1 Authority under Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the Authority') on 8.5.1989 stating inter alia that the respondent No. 2 had been functioning as Manager in the New Light talkies, Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar and he was being paid salary of Rs.1075/- per month since 15.4.1979 and the services o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-19-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ4274
K.K. Misra, J.1. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 12-4-1996 passed by Sri S.K. Ratoori 1st Additional District Judge, Siddharthnagar convicting the sole appellant Munna under Section 20(b)(2) and Section 23 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short N.D.P.S.) Act sentencing him with 15 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and further in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 17-10-1994 at about 6.30 p.m. Inspector Custom Sri B.K. Srivastava, Incharge Custom Station Khunwa, District Siddharth nagar, received an information that a person carrying Charas from Nepal shall be passing through this route. Consequently Sri B.K. Singh PW 1, complainant summoned two independent witnesses and took position near the Barrier to apprehended the culprit. At about 7.00 p. Jeep No. 5560 was seen coming from Nepal side and when it reached near the Barrier the Cust...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-23-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC2787
..... landlord-respondent no. 2, sharad chandra mishra filed a suit bearingsuit no, 156 of 1994 for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from house no. ck-32/1, 2, 3, mohalla nepali khapra, varanasi, which is a non-residential accommodation in which one late smt. gangajali was the tenant. originally it was let out to kedar nath, who was tenant and after .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT West Bengal
Decided on : Jul-25-2002
Reported in : (2006)146STC376Tribunal
1. This is an application Under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 praying for setting aside the impugned orders dated July 30, 2001 and April 4, 2002 passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and for a declaration that the provisions of Section 32(1) and 32(3) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1994") are in conflict with each other and also in conflict with Rule 190 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1995").2. The assessment of the petitioner for the four quarters ending March 31, 1997 was completed on June 24, 1999 and an appeal was preferred, being aggrieved with the order of assessment which was disposed of on June 25, 2001. The order of assessment was modified by the said appellate order dated June 25, 2001. Revised calculation A of tax payable by the petitioner was made and reassessment order passed on July 30, 2001. A notice of demand in form No. 33 for payment of Rs. 39,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-26-2002
Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2603; 2003(1)WLC563
Misra, J.1. The petitioner Commercial Taxes Officer has preferred this revision petition against the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 21.4.98 wherein it has been held that the product sold by the respondent-company which are Hose-collar, Hose-socket, Hose connector, Hose-clip, foot-valve are the items used in water pump and hence, the sales-tax which was leviable under these items would be 10% as it will have to be treated as a residuary item which prescribes 10% tax only. Thus, the order passed by the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority holding therein that it should be leviable under item No. 78 which specifies 12% tax for all types of sanitary goods and all types of pipes and pipe-fittings cannot be levied as the items manufactured by the respondent herein would fall in the residuary items. Consequently, the orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities were set aside by the Rajasthan Tax Board at Ajmer.2. The petitioner-Department through the Commercial Taxes Of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-29-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)MPHT200; 2003(1)MPLJ31
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J. 1. This order will decide Civil Revision Nos. 202/2000 (Sawal Singh v. Smt. Ramsakhi and Ors.), 286/2002 (Anokhi Lal v. Surendra Kumar and Ors.) and 388/2002 (Leela Bai v. Lottan and Ors.) involving same question of law. The facts of the cases are as under :-- (Civil Revision No. 202/2000) The applicant has filed present revision challenging the order dated 18-1-2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Khurai, Distt. Sagar in Civil M.A. No. 19/99, by which appeal filed by plaintiffs/respondents under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC was allowed and temporary injunction issued against the applicant during the pendency of the suit. (Civil Revision No. 286/2002) This applicant has challenged the order passed by First Civil Judge, Class 2, Khandwa, in Civil Suit No. 170-A/99 by which application filed by non-applicants/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC was allowed and plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint. This revision was filed on 6-2-2002 and admitted on 9-4-2002...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-30-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2877; [2002(95)FLR689]; [2003(1)JCR87(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC591; 2002LabIC2943; 2002(5)SCALE512; (2002)6SCC562; [2002]SUPP1SCR317; 2003(1)SLJ121(SC); (2002)3UPLBEC2281
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. Leave to appeal granted, Consequently, the appeals are taken on file and being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The selections held and the consequential appointments made to the posts of primary school teachers by the Zila Parishads of various districts in the State of Rajasthan during the year 1998-1999 have given rise to these appeals. The full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court dated 18.11.1999 in Kailash Chand Sharma (Petitioner in first of the appeals corresponding to SLP No. 1824/2000) v. State of Rajasthan and connected Writ Petitions are under challenge in these appeals apart from the Division Bench Judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Naval Kishore Sharma. The full Bench followed its earlier judgment in Deepak Kumar Suthar v. State of Rajasthan (W.P. No. 1917/1995) and disposed of the Writ Petitions on the same terms as in the previous full Bench reference case. At the outset, it may be stated that the judgment of the full Bench rendered on O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-31-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)ALLMR10; 2003(1)BomCR284
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. All the twenty-four writ petitions involve similar facts and common issues and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondent No. 2 to consider them for admission to the courses in Health Sciences in the reserved categories such as Scheduled Caste, Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class, Vimukta Jati etc. and not in the open merit category. Except last five writ petitions bearing lodging Nos. 1634, 1644, 1645, 1646 and 1647 of 2002, in all other petitions, we had issued rule and passed interim orders in terms of prayer Clause (a), thereby directing the respondent No. 2-Director of Medical Education and Research (for short DMER) to consider the petitioners for admission to the courses in Health Sciences in the reserved category, which each of the petitioners has claimed in his/her respective writ petitions, and not in the open merit category. Prayer Clause (a) is identical in al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-03-2002
Reported in : (2003)1UPLBEC312
Binod Kumar Roy and M.P. Singh, JJ.1. Whether the respondent who is a member of Higher Judicial Service of our State, for non-declaration of results of Intermediate Examination, 1997 of his own son could have initiated suo motu judicial proceedings in his own Court, proceeded to pass orders for production of Answer Books of his son and held guilty the Educational Authorities of the State after holding an Enquiry of committal of alleged offences under Indian Penal Code, Section 340 Cr PC and even guilty of committal of Contempt of Court Act and decided to make reference thereunder And whether this Court will be justified in interfering with his acts and orders/directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? are the core questions which have cropped up for adjudication in this writ proceedings.The Prayers :2. The petitioners - the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Education (Secondary)-cum-Chairman, U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad...
Tag this Judgment!