Rajasthan Jaipur Court November 2010 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.
Narendra Singh and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) (2008(2) WLC 406) clarifying the position ad infra: However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 6500-10500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on them.2. But those...
Sanjay Tyagi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-27-2010
1. This Public Interest Litigation relates to a land, which exists in the heart of Jaipur City, known as Rambagh Area. A decision was taken somewhere in the month of February, 1973 to acquire the land of Ram Bagh Area and, thereafter, a Gazette Notification was issued under the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (for short UIT Act of 1959). Acquisition was challenged by Brigadier Bhawani Singh (erstwhile Ruler), Gandhi Grah Nirman Co-operative Society and many other persons. Acquisition proceedings were upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, dismissed the Special Leave Petition. On dismissal of the S.L.P., an award was passed on 18.10.1993. Petitioner has come up with this petition alleging encroachment on the part of land so acquired. It is submitted that private respondents are having political and bureaucratic shelter to maintain illegal possession on acquired land worth crores of rupees. Looking to aforesaid, a direction has been s...
Ssistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bharatpur. Vs. Shri Rishi Garg.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-24-2010
1. Petitioner/assessing officer vide its order dated 31.10.2006 levied penalty under Section 76(11) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2003') for violation of provisions of Section 76(2)(a) of the Act of 2003. Penalty order passed by the assessing officer was set aside by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 13.03.2007, while accepting the appeal of the assessee. Rajasthan Tax Board upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 15.09.2009, which is under challenge in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the department.2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although all the required documents were available with the in-charge of the vehicle at the time of checking of vehicle/goods and required tax had already been paid, but seal of check post of Commercial Taxes Department of State of Rajasthan was not there on the documents...
Rajasthan Financial Corporation. Vs M/S. Ganpat Lal Baboo Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
1. The crucial legal questions which arise for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the application filed under Section 31(1) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short the Act) is a plaint and whether the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to it?2. This question has emerged in the following circumstances-(i)Respondents nos. 2 and 3 after availing loan facility from the appellant (for short RFC) purchased a Ashoka Leyland Bus Model 1981 bearing No. RNB 2607. Respondents nos. 4 and 5 executed a deed of guarantee. The Respondent no. 4 also submitted an affidavit with regard to his house situated at Jaipur mentioning therein that he will not transfer his house till the loan is repaid. The liability of the guarantors is coextensive with the principal debtor. (ii)Loan amounting to Rs. 2,35,000/- was to be paid by the respondents. When the principal debtor did not make the payment, the notice under Section 30 of the S.F.C. Act was issued. Thereafter, the Bus No...
Shri Bhanwar Lal Agarwal Vs.The State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-22-2010
1. Competent authority has passed that order under Rule 6(1)(b) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'Rules of 1996') read with Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, on premise that since he, after his retirement, was convicted by court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Jaipur, vide judgment dated 13.09.1994 for offence under Sections 120B, 420, 471 read with Section 465 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, therefore that rule would have no application to his case. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that incident on the basis of which petitioner was involved in criminal case pertain to year 1978 of which first information report was lodged in 1981 and that even as per Rules 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules, for incident which is older than four years, powers under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules cannot be exercised. It is contended that petitioner has filed appeal ag...
Shri Bhanwar Lal Agarwal. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-22-2010
1. Petitioner, by way of filing present writ petition, has challenged order dated 05.08.1998 by which his pension was ordered to be stopped. Competent authority has passed that order under Rule 6(1)(b) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'Rules of 1996') read with Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, on premise that since he, after his retirement, was convicted by court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Jaipur, vide judgment dated 13.09.1994 for offence under Sections 120B, 420, 471 read with Section 465 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, therefore that rule would have no application to his case. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that incident on the basis of which petitioner was involved in criminal case pertain to year 1978 of which first information report was lodged in 1981 and that even as per Rules 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules, for incident whic...
Bd and P Hotels (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. District Judge, Jhunjhunu and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. Instant petition has been filed by M/s BD & P Hotels (India) (P) Ltd who was in possession of Hotel Mukandgarh Resorts since 04/08/2009 on having purchased lease hold rights through respondent-6 (secured creditor) under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), but has been dispossessed on 09/03/2010 pursuant to warrant of possession issued by the Executing Court, Jhunjhunu on 05/03/2010 in Execution Appl.No.35/2009) at the behest of decree holder in execution of Arbitral Award dt. 15/02/2009 passed for recovery of possession and arrears along with interest against its lessee (respondent-5), possession whereof was taken over by secured creditor (TFCI-respondent-6) with whom lease hold rights were mortgaged creating security interest by respondent-5 with the consent of lessor (respondent-2 to 4) on 22/08/2008. Question arising for consideration in instant case is as to whether petitioner in whose favour lease hold...
Mamta Kumari and ors. Vs. the Board of Sec. Education, Raj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the respondents be directed to declare their result of Senior Secondary Examination (Hum.), 2009.2. All the petitioners are regular students of 12th Class (Senior Secondary) of Indira Gandhi Balika Niketan Senior Secondary School, Ardawata, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. The Senior Secondary Examination (Hum.), 2009 had commenced from 12.03.2009. The petitioners were allotted Center (No.15156) Indira Gandhi Balika Niketan Senior Secondary School, Ardawata. The result of Senior Secondary School Examination, 2009 was declared by respondents on 10.06.2009. But the result of the petitioners was withheld. Thereafter, the respondents had sent letters to petitioners on 6th and 7th July, 2009 mentioning that they have adopted unfair means in two papers of the examination namely, English (Compulsory) and History Second. The petitioners were asked to appear personally on 14.07.2009, at 11.00 am.3. In pursuance of t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›