Rajasthan Court October 1997 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.
Ganesha Ram and ors. Vs. Urban Improvement Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj73
ORDERA.S. Godara, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the appellate order dated 10-9-1997 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bikaner in C.M.A. No. 109/96 thereby dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioners and affirming order dated 17-8-1994 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Bikaner, who had disallowed application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant-petitioners. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition arc as follows : The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial Court and so also moved an application for temporary injunction with a prayer that the defendant-respondent be restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners by way of dispossing them from the suit premises which are five shops described as 19-G, 19-H, 19-I, 19-J and 19-K situated near the Jassu Gate, Bikaner. Besides, it may also be mentioned that plaintiffs' case is that plot of land measuring 10 x 100 ft...
Jayanti Lal Patel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors. (A ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Raj)571
Y. R. MEENA, J. :These two writ petitions are directed, one against the show-cause notice dt. 6th June, 1994, and another against the assessment orders dt. 22nd March, 1996 & 27th March, 1996 Annexures-IX-A to IX-F. In writ petition No. 3494 of 1994, the petitioner has prayed that notice be quashed and respondents be directed to return the FDRs to petitioner and in writ petition No. 2879 of 1997, the petitioner has prayed that the aforesaid assessment orders be set aside. Since the issue of ownership of FDRs is common in both the writ petitions, therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2. The search and seizure operation was carried out by the officials of the IT Department, on 17th and 18th September, 1992, at the residence of Dr. Tomar. The team of raid party was headed by DDI Shri Dilip Shivpuri. In that search operation, jewellery of 12 tola gold and Rs. 7,164 in cash were found. In addition to jewellery of ladies of family and cash amount Rs. 7...
Parmanand Paliwal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC237; 1997(2)WLN498
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner is the elected ward Member of Municipal Board, Rajsamand from ward No. 21. Later on, he contested the election of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand and was declared elected. At the relevant time, the petitioner was the Chairman of the Municipal Board. On 22.10.96 a shew cause notice was issued to the petitioner for explanation Under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). On 5.11.96 a reply was filed by the petitioner. A charge sheet was issued that while holding the post of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand, the petitioner at his whims has effected renovation of the chamber without inviting tenders or even issuing the work order. He has not fixed the rates for executing the work and, therefore, he has committed financial irregularity using his position. Charge No. 2 is to the effect that on 25.6.97, tenders were invited for carrying out the work of paver at six places. The tenders were ...
Khem Das Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN512
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in this and batch of petitions shown in Schedule A, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioners are authorised fair price shopkeepers holding authorisation under the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short 'the Order of 1976' hereinafter). The petitioners were issued authorisation by the Authorised Officer in exercise of powers conferred on him under clause: 3 of the Order of 1976. Various cases of irregularities and illegalities have been brought to the notice of the Department and the State Govt. and in view thereof, the State Govt. in consultation with the Legal Department had taken a decision on 7.2.97 that Sarpanch, Panch, Municipal Counsellor and members of Panchayat Samiti being public servants. It would not be lawful or expedient to allot authorisation to them to be an authorised fair price shopkeeper. Thus, any person who has...
Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC699; 1997(2)WLN505
J.C. Verma, J.1. All the three writ petitions involved the same question of law as to the applicability of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and, therefore, they are being decided together Civil Writ Petition No. 5793/83 and Civil Writ Petition No. 768/93 also involve the same facts, similar charges and arise out of the similar cause of action.2. All the three writ petitioners had been superannuated after attaining the age of 58 from their respective posts being held by them. Immediately after retirement on certain charges the petitioners were charged to face as enquiry. Charges related to certain misconducts as mentioned in the chargesheets. After the enquiry having been held, the writ petitioner Ram Singh & Deo Krishan Bohra were punished with punishment of withholding 1/5 of their pension for the period of 5 years. Similarly, the petitioner Ram Jeevan Dubey was also involved whereby, his pension, gratuity and capitation pension was involved.3. Common contention in all th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›