Rajasthan Court September 1992 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.
Ali Aksar Vs. Shri Mohanlal Sukhadia University and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)222
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Ali Aksar has prayed that Note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules for admission to B.Ed/Shikash Shastri Courses in the shape of General Guide Lines for PreTeacher Education Test (PTET), 1991 (for short 'the Rules') be struck down.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a bonafide resident of Village Sanwa Tehsil Chauhtan District Banner. He passed his B.A. Examinations from University of Ajmer in the year 1988. Thereafter, he appealed in PTET Test in the year 1991 and has secured in all 303 marks. It is alleged that in Banner District, the persons who have secured 293 marks in PTET Test have been granted admission B.Ed. Course. His contention is that as he has passed his Secondary School Examinations from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, his case for admission to B.Ed. Course has been considered under general seats for candidates outside Rajasthan. He has contended that fo...
Mohammed Saleem Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)226
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This Miscellaneous Petition is directed against the order of the. learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby, he ordered that vehicle No. RJ-19G 0755 be released on 'Supurdginama' to Manoj Kumar (respondent No. 2) provided he furnishes a personal bond In the sum of Rs. 6 lacs with one surety In the like amount.2. The relevant facts to be notice, In short are that the vehicle bearing No, RJ 19-G 0755 Model-1988 was sold by one Manoj Kumar (respondent No. 2) to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs only and that vehicle was handed-over to the petitioner on 11.12.91. On the same day, the petitioner paid Rs. 2 Lacs and balance sum of Rs. 1 lac was paid on 30.3.92. The Registration of the vehicle was also transferred in the name of the petitioner on the same day. Since 11.12.91, the petitioner was playing that vehicle. On 14.6.92 the S.H.O. Sardarpura, Police Station, Jodhpur seized the said vehicle from the possession of the petitioner in CR No. 139/92 dated 14....
H.U. Construction Company and anr. Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC280; 1992(2)WLN275
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These three writ petitions raise identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order/judgment.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these three writ petitions briefly staled are as follows:H.U. Construction Co'S Case:3. This writ petition was filed on 24.6.1992. In this case, Shri Kesharam, petitioner of S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 3949 of 1992 has also filed an application to become a party to the writ petition and he has been impleaded as respondent No. 5.4. The case of the petitioner is that he came to know about the auction of royalty collection contract for Sand Stones excavated in Tehsil Jodhpur on 19.6.1992 at 11.30 A.M. Thereafter, one of the partner of the petitioner firm Shri Idu Khan approached respondent No. 2 and he was informed that a notification about the impugned auction was notified in local News-Paper Rajasthan Patrika on 4.6.1992. Later, he offered Rs. 10,00...
Pema Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ252; 1992(3)WLC422; 1992(2)WLN339
ORDERV.R. Meena, J.1. By this petition, petitioner has prayed that in this case complaint was filed in Feb. 1977 till today only the charges are framed against Lala Ram that means prosecution has taken 15 years only in framing charges. When the State is not serious in prosecuting the petitioner the proceedings be quashed. 2. In this case a complaint was filed on 28-2-1977 for the offence under Section 3/ 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The allegation against the accused was that on inspecting the shop of the petitioner, some irregularities were found by D.S.O. Shri Het Ram, in respect of distribution of sugar.3. Complaint was registered and process Ram has been examined so far, still 28 witnesses are left to be examined or cross-examined by Lala Ram. With this speed, the case will not be completed in another 15 years. This shows that State/ Prosecution is not interested in conviction of the petitioner in this case. Henqe, the proceedings against Pema Ram, petitioner is qashed was i...
Mehta Construction Co. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)195
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of road for work of RMC from Chuck No. 0 to 85 of Sorri Kamla Amba Project. According to the terms of Agreement, the work was to commence from 22.5.1979 and was to be completed by 21.3.1980, which date was extented from time to time, sometimes on the representation of the petitioner and sometime suo moto. Vide order dated 30th June, 1982 (Annx. 10), the petitioner was informed that he has committed brench of contract by not completing the work within the time allowed and, therefore, Clause (2) of the Agreement entitles the respondent-Department for damages of Rs. 23421/-, to be paid by the petitioner to the Government. The petitioner did not deposit this amkount. Thereafter, proceedings against the petitioner was taken for recovery of Rs. 1,20,437.38 by issuing a requisition on 15.3.1983. The Collector, Banswara rejected the petitioner's objection on the ground that if there is an Agreement between a private indi...
Mrs. Dharmi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)305
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioners claim to be Khatetar of the agricultural land measuring 4 Bighas and 13 Biswas in all comprising Khasara Nos. 516, 518, 519 and 520 in village Satpur a part of Revenue Inspectorate, Abu Road. The petitioners further alleged that 1750 Sq. Feet, of land falling in Khasara No. 516 and other measuring 572 sq. feet of land were taken on rent by petitioner No. 2 from Public Works Department Government of Rajasthan out of 2 Bighas 2 Biswas comprising Khasra No. 516. Second petitioner made a construction of restaurant for 'Dhaba' some where in 1970. The said Dhaba is alloged to have been demolished by respondents. Likewise, it is alleged that on another land 520 feet, the petitioner No.2 has constructed a shop on land adjacent to Khasara No. 516 which was taken on rent on Rs. 3/- per month from Public Works Department.2. The rent in respect of this land not being accepted upto December 1978, the petitioner was served a notice dated 24.7.79 to the effect that ...
Sita Ram Motilal Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)229
A.K. Mathur, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be restrained from taking any action against him under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Market Produce Act, 1961 and Rules framed there under (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) and has also prayed that Bye-law 2(7) framed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shivganj may be declared as ultra vires, of the Act. Lastly, it is prayed that the respondent No. 2 may be directed to release the account books of the petitioner seized by the respondents.2. Petitioner is carrying on his business as a retail trader in food-grains, oil-seeds, sugar, cloth etc. at village Gohili, Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi for more than the last 40 years. The said village is situated within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi. By Notification dated 21st April, 1977, which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 28th April, 1977, the State of Rajasthan issued a Notification under sec...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Prakash Chand Vyas and 4 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC402; 1992WLN(UC)527
V.K. Snghal, J.1. The dispute In these special appeals is with regard to the eligibility of the candidates for admission in B.Sc. (Nursing) Part III Examination.2. Number of writ petitions have been filed In the High Court at Jodhpur and at Jaipur Bench. The first of the judgments, which was given in the matter was of Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 442/92 decided on 17.2.1992, in which the requirement of educational qualification prescribed under the Notification dated 11th June, 1991 was challenged on the ground that such Notification is contrary to Ordinance No. 299-V-3. The advertisement required that for the eligibility of B.Sc. (Nursing) Part III examination, the candidate should have passed the 1st Year Science Examination of Three Years Degree Course of the University or the examination recognised by the University as equivalent thereto in all compulsory subjects and the optional subjects of medical (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) including En...
Goyal and Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC441; 1992WLN(UC)469
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge dated April 13, 1992, wherein the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has a remedy against the order passed under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the said order has only been made in a summary manner and regular assessment proceedings are yet to take place.2. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the remedy provided under Section 132(11) of the Act is not a bar to maintenance of a writ petition. It is submitted that the said order has been passed without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and that the notice has been issued only in respect of the investment of Rs. 50,000 whereas the amount of income determined is far in excess of that sum and thus the order is without jurisdiction.3. It has also been submitted that the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to take into consideration...
Goyal and Company Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1992
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Raj)511; [1994]209ITR332(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL, J. :- This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge dated April 13, 1992, wherein the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has a remedy against the order passed under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the said order has only been made in a summary manner and regular assessment proceedings are yet to take place.The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the remedy provided under section 132(11) of the Act is not a bar to maintenance of a writ petition. It is submitted that the said order has been passed without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and that the notice has been issued only in respect of the investment of Rs. 50,000 whereas the amount of income determined is far in excess of that sum and thus the order is without jurisdiction.It has also been submitted that the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to take into consideration the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »