Rajasthan Court September 1996 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.
Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Mahaveer Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj87
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. This is anappeal filed by the appellant wife/ mother for the custody of the minor child Vikas against her husband the non-petitioner.2. A proceeding under S. 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short hereinafter as the Act) was instituted by Shri Mahaveer Singh-husband of theappellant and father of minor child Vikas in the Court of District Judge, Sri-Ganganagar. District Judge vide his order dated October 6, 1995 granted custody of the child to Shri Mahaveer Singh. An appeal was filed by the appellant before this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court maintained the order of the learned District Judge, Sri-Ganganagar and granted custody of the child to the father-respondent. It is against these two judgments that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.3. Before examining the validity of the judgments in question at the admission stage, the minor child Vikas and her mother, who were present in Court, were interviewed by us. As expected...
Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC510; 1996(2)WLN252
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard2. Perused the orders passed by learned Additional District Collector, Jalore, learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi camp at Jalore and the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 2 cancelling the allotment of the petitioner on the ground inter alia that the land cannot be allotted to him as envisaged under Rule 6(3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1970).3. The petitioner has been non-suited by all the courts below.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri M.C. Bhoot urged before me that provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1970 are ultravires to the statutory provisions envisaged under Sub-Section 4(1) to (iii) of Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It is to be noticed that Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1970 has been framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Clause (xviii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 261 of the R...
Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj108; 1997(1)WLC140; 1997(2)WLN471
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. The above noted revision petition was initially preferred as an appeal vide C.M.A. No. 35/96 under Section 32(9) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act of 1951') against the Order dated 19-12-1995, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Execution Case No. 19/87. On 19th April 1996 the learned counsel for the parties were directed to address arguments regarding the maintainability of the appeal under the Act. During the course of hearing, Shri Man-dhana, learned counsel for the appellant had stated at the bar that the said appeal may be treated as revision against the Order dated 19-12-1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur instead of appeal. He had further stated that under a bona fide belief that appeal was maintainable under the Act, he had preferred the appeal, but subsequently it transpired that revision should have been filed instead of appeal. He had further stated a...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Lassi K. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC422; 1996(2)WLN684
A.K. Parihar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 23.7.1994, passed by Judge, Labour Court, Kota, by which termination of services of respondent No. 1 was declared to be illegal and unjustified and the respondent-workman was held entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.2. The facts, as come on record, are that respondent No. 1 was engaged as typist on daily wages basis on 28.9.1984 in the office of Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Division-I, Kota. The contention of the respondent No. l was that she was removed from service w.e.f. 16.10.1985 without notice and without complying with provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, .whereas she has completed more than 240 days of service in the employment of the department as referred to above. After making representations to the Authorities concerned the respondent No. l filed an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 1.11.1985 itself. Before Conci...
Registrar of Trade Unions and Joint Labour Commissioner. (H.Q.) Vs. La ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1226Raj; 1996(2)WLN402
M.G. Mukherji, Actg.C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated April 17, 1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5870/1993.2. The Registrar of Trade Unions filed the writ application seeking to quash the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated August 7, 1993. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the learned District Judge has rightly set aside the order cancelling the registration of the respondent-Lake Palace Hotel Karya Karta Union dated September 30, 1991 and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order as passed by the learned District Judge and thus dismissed the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the Registrar of Trade Unions and Joint Labour Commissioner was given liberty to proceed under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 in accordance with law 3. Mr. K.L. Jasma...
Mohan Ram Vs. Board of Revenue for Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN247
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order passed by the Assistant Collector and Assistant Colonisation Commissioner on 1.7.91, Anx. 3, order passed by the Additional Colonisation-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner on 12.10.93, Anx. 4 and the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 22.7.96, Anx. 5 to the writ petition appointing receiver in respect of the land in question.2. The aforesaid orders have been passed by the abovementioned courts in exercise of its power under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Thus petitioner's claim opposing appointment of receiver has been negatived by all the courts below.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri J.R.Beniwal streneously urged before me that the subordinate courts have erred in appointing receiver with regard to land in dispute as according to him it is admitted that the land was also allotted to the petitioner after cancellation of allotment of respondent No. 4. According...
Asha Ram and ors. Vs. Bhanwar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC113; 1996(2)WLN393
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. As common questions of law and facts are involved except the different accommodations as suit properties, the judgment in this appeal (No. 11/90) shall govern all other appeals. Civil Suit No. 129/64 (Suit No. 67/81 new) for arrears of rent and damages in respect of the shop situated in Sadar Bazar, Balotra was filed by the plaintiffs Sunder Bai and Aichuki Devi. Second Appeal No. 11/90 filed by Asha Ram and Second Appeal No. 79/90 filed by the tenants arise out of this civil suit. Civil Suit No. 146/64 (Civil Suit No. 69/81 new) for arrears of rent and possession of the shop was filed by Sunder Bai and Aichuki Devi. Second Appeal No. 9/90 filed by Asha Ram arises out of that suit. Civil Suit No. 135/64 (Civil Suit No. 68/81 new) for recovery of rent and ejectment from Nohra situated in Balotra was filed by Sundar Bai and Aichuki Devi. Second Appeal No. 10/90 filed by Asha Ram and Second Appeal No. 78/90 filed by the tenants arise out of this civil suit.2. In order ...
Dr. S.D. Kapoor Vs. the Chancellor, Jai NaraIn Vyas University and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj217; 1997(1)WLC218; 1996(2)WLN328
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. In the instant writ petition petitioner questions impugned order dated 29-6-96. Anx. 2, passed by the Chancellor nominating Dr. S. L, Verma, Retired Professor (Department of Political Science) of University of Rajasthan, as his nominee in the syndicate of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur thereinafter referred as respondent University )w.e.f. 28-6-96 for a period, three years in supersession of his earlier order dated 15-9-95 a communication whereof is filed and marked as Anx. I.2. The genesis of challenge of the validity of the impugned order terminating petitioner stunure as nominated member of Syndicate of the respondent University before expiry of the period of three years is based on grounds inter-alia that power of the Chancellor to nominate a member of Syndicate under clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of Jai Narain Vyas University Jodhpur Act, 1962 thereinafter referred as Act No. 17 of 1962) stands exhausted with nomination of the petitioner.3...
Chhoga Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC1; 1996(2)WLN245
M.G. Mukherji, Actg. C.J.1. The writ petitioner-appellant was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bakaliya, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur. There were two fold charges against him of having abused his position as a Sarpanch and a proceeding was taken against him by the State Government under the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. The first charge was that a piece of agricultural land measuring 5 bighas was gifted to the Panchayat by one Rupa Ram for common use. This piece of land without being converted was given by way of pattas treating it as Abadi land and thus, the apposite Rules were violated and the writ petitioner-appellant misused his position as a Sarpanch. The second charge against him was that the land which was meant for common use and was received as a gift in the shape of agricultural land was given by way of pattas, violating the terms and conditions of the gift deed.2. The defence inter-alia of the writ petitioner-appellant was that he might have ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vasu Puziya JaIn Derashar Pedi Undri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR247(Raj)
B. R. Arora J.1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (camp at Jodhpur), may be directed to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court which arises out of the order dated January 16, 1991, passed by the Tribunal :'(1) Whether in regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that if thelearned Commissioner of Income-tax was willing to entertain the assessee-trust's application for grant of registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and had granted registration to it, he should have condoned the delay which the assessee-trust has prayed for, in view of the following facts : (i) that to grant registration and to condone the delay or not is the sole prerogative of the Commissioner of Income-tax which is not appealable and thus the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has grossl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »