Rajasthan Court October 1998 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.
Prakash Shukla Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj103; 1999(1)WLC413
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a landless and homeless person who is in need of a plot, and, therefore, seeks direction to the respondents for alloting a plot for construction of residence in Jaipur City as per entitlement under Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter to he referred as the 'Rules of 1974'). 2. The Rules of 1974 do provide for disposal of plots which the competent authority decides to dispose of either by way of allotment or by way of auction. It is the contention of the petitioner that certain notification was issued in the year 1983 where a movement has been launched by the State Government for Housing Organisation and Urban Development under different heads which included disposal of cases relating to sale of land (including stray plots and strips of lands), regularisalion of old possessions, allotment of land to backward castes and weaker sections, conversion (sic) agricultural land, cases of a...
Major Suraj Bhan Singh Jodha Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj35
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner, an ex-serviceman of-the rank of Major, is aggrieved because of the orders dated 5-2-81 (Ann. 14A) and 18-8-80 (Ann. I4B) by which orders the residential plot allotted to petitioner vide order dated 12-9-78 (Ann. 8) by Government of Rajasthan while exercising the powers under Section 60(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 had been withdrawn all of a sudden and without any prior notice to petitioner. 2. The petitioner had joined Army in the year 1962, he had applied for allotment of a residential plot under the notification issued by State Government under Section 60 of The Improvement Act. The notification dated 9-5-63 enabled the State Government to allot the land to army personnel for residential purposes. The petitioner did apply and also sent repeated applications. On further pursuing the matter in regard to allotment of plot he was asked to submit certain certificate about his bona fide residence of State of Rajasthan, which was...
Udai Lal JaIn Vs. Bheem Raj Meena
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj110; 1999(1)WLC611
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant Election Petition is posted today for disposal of substitution application moved under Sub-section (3)of section 112 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951'). The applicant-petitioner was granted ten days time on 15-10-98 to file rejoinder to the reply of the substitution application filed by the respondent opposing substitution application. In spite of time granted to file rejoinder, no rejoinder has been filed.2. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-petitioner Mr. Govind Mathur and learned counsel Mr. Manish Singhvi appearing on behalf of the respondent.3. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention towards objections raised in the reply, which are not controverted by the applicant-petitioner by filing rejoinder. It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that a bare perusal of Sub-section (3) of Section 112 of the Act of 1951 clearly shows that an application for subs...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State Transport Appella ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj111; 1999(1)WLC619
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant petitions have been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation thereinafter called 'the Corporation') being aggrieved by the judgment and orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal thereinafter called 'the Tribunal') dated 6-12-97 and 17-1-98 passed in the revision petition and appeals filed by the contesting respondents herein against the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority thereinafter called 'the R.T.A.'), by which the Corporation was permitted to lift the permit within the extended period of thirty days vide order dated 22-1 -1996 and rejection of the applications for grant of permits in favour of respondents, namely, Mr. Pawan Kumar and Mr. Rishi Kumar vide order dated 27-5-1996 on Rajgarh-Hissar via Jhumpa inter-State route.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Corporation had been granted permanent stage carriage permits on the said route in 1982 and it plied its vehicle up to...
Laxmi Cinema, Barmer Vs. Prem Prakash Cinema, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj138; 1999(1)WLC535
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1. None appeared for the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in spite of the service. 2. The short question to be decided in this revision petition is whether an amount of Rs. 500/- is required to be paid with an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 for setting aside the award, by virtue of the provisions contained in para 10 of the Scheme framed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court under Sub-section (10) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation ordinance, 1996. 3. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this petition may be briefly stated as follows:-- The petitioner filed an application before the District Judge, Jodhpur under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award. He paid Court-fee to the tune of Rs. 250/-. T...
Mahesh Jhajharia and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj56; 1999(2)WLC248
ORDERGyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioner who in all are 42 in numbers and are students of Bachelor of Pharmacy course, have been embroiled in a messy situation as although they were granted admission in the aforesaid Course in Baba Mungiappa College of Pharmacy-respondent No. 6 herein, after they qualified in the competitive test for such admission they were shell-shocked to realise that the respondent No. 6 was not having the affiliation for conducting the course after 1995 and approval was granted to conduct the course of pharmacy only uptil year 1995. The other limb of complaint lodged by the petitioners is that even the students of the year 1995 who were granted admission, were unable to get the required instructions expected of such course in absence of the required infrastructure of the college.2. In appreciate as to whether the petitioners have a valid cause of action or not to move this Court by filing this writ petition, it is essential to record the relevant details of the ...
Hasmat Tara and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj163
V.S. Kokje, Actg. C.J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common order and arise out of the same suit and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided together.2. The land in question earlier belonged to one Shri Munir Khan who was original holder of the land. He died in the year 1940. His nephews Fajlu Khan and Hafij Khan succeeded to the estate according to one party and according to the other party only Hafij Khan succeeded to the estate of Munir Khan. M/s. J. K. White Cement Works purchased the land in question from sons of Hafij Khan alone. When they tried to enter possession, successors of Fajlu Khan objected and filed the suit and prayed for temporary injunction therein for protecting their possession. Daughters of Hafij Khan were also impleaded in this suit. On12-2-96 a temporary injunction was issued at the instance of the successors of Fajlu Khan as well as three daughters of Hafij Khan. Four appeals were filed against the injunction order, all of them were dism...
Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR633(Raj); 1999(3)WLC135
J.C. Verma, J.1. A draft of Rs. 46,300 was seized and recovered subsequent to the completion of the original assessment of the petitioner for the year 1981-82. The draft was dated January 10,1983, in the name of the late Shri Thakur Das Gupta. The petitioner is a son of Shri Thakur Das Gupta. The draft was recovered by the Income-tax Officer against a demand made by the Income-tax Officer of an amount of Rs. 1,23,162 dated January 20, 1983. This demand was ultimately cancelled by the Commissioner of Income-tax vide order dated November 26, 1989. For the reason that no demand was pending, the draft amount recovered was to be refunded and, therefore, a demand was made for refund of the amount along with interest vide annexure 1. Repeated reminders were also sent. The petitioner was asked to attend the Income-tax Office a number of times. For the reasons that the matter stood already decided in favour of the father of the petitioner, a departmental appeal had also been filed by the Depart...
Vijay Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)WLC608; 1999(1)WLN223
B.J. Shethna, J.1. As per the order dated 8.10.1998 passed by this court, learned Counsel Shri Shah for the petitioner accused produced the certified copy of the order dated 17.9.98 passed by Shri Babu Ali Saiyad, RHJS, Addl. Sessions Judge, bali, in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 224/98 filed by four other co accused. The same is ordered to be taken on record.2. On the basis of the finding recorded by the learned Judge in para 6 of the order dated 17.9.98 passed in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 224/98, learned Counsel Mr. Shah for the petitioner submitted that the present accused petitioner, who is husband of the complainant-wife be granted anticipatory bail. The finding is reproduced as under:;g Li'V gS fd ifjokfnuh ds ifjokn ds vuqlkj ;g ?kVuk mlds lkFk nwljh ckj gqbZ] ysfdu izFke ckj tks ifjokn is'k fd;k x;k Fkk mldh dksbZ izfr vuqla/kku es lfEefyr gqbZ ugh gS] ek= /kkjk 125 na-iza-la- dh dk;Zokgh ds ifjokn dh izfr vuqlaa/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk jsdkM+Z ij yh xbZ gS ftles ngst ds fy, ekjihV djuk ...
Dholpur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Controller Under Payment ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ663Raj; 1999(3)WLC450
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The respondent No. 2 Ram Charan had served the petitioner society for about more than 21 years from March 1, 1968 to August 31, 1988, when he had retired after retaining the age of superannuation. He was employed as driver. Even though he had served the petitioner society for more than 21 years but he was not paid the gratuity. He claimed gratuity of 13 months' pay. Nothing was paid with the result the respondents had to approach the respondent No. 1 for determining the gratuity. It was the case of petitioner that it being a co-operative society, it was not liable to pay any gratuity and the matter should have been decided by the Registrar exercising the powers under Section 75 of the Act. The order was passed on March 22, 1991 by the Competent Authority to the effect that respondent driver was entitled for payment of gratuity as per law, and therefore, the gratuity was ordered to be paid to the tune of Rs. 10,750/- along with the interest thereon, amounting to Rs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »