Rajasthan Court January 1999 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.
Vijaypal Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj131; 1999(2)WLC600; 1999(1)WLN76
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The present petitioners, who are not the original allottee of the land in question have filed this petition and challenged the impugned order dated 20-8-1998 (Annexure P/4) passed by the learned Special Judge (III), Pong Dam Oustees, Sriganganagar, whereby, the allotment made in favour of original allottee deceased Roshan Lal on 16-7-1972 has been declared as cancelled in view of the breach of conditions committed by the deceased allottee Roshan Lal and the land in question has been vested within the State Government.2. Learned counsel Shri Sidhu for the petitioner vehemently challenged the impugned order (Annexure P/4) passed by the learned Special Judge on the ground that there was no breach of conditions of Rules, 1972 as the land in question was legally transferred by the original allottee deceased Roshan Lal in favour of present petitioners by way of will. He further submits that as per the will dated 5-5-1989 the mutation entry (Annexure P/2) was also made...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ871; 1999(2)WLC8; 1999(1)WLN130
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction dated July 27,1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Gangangar in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1992 convicting the accused appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal as also canvassed orally by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, stated briefly, are that on 4-3-1992 at about 8.30 a.m. first information report was lodged by one Hari Prasad Meena in Police Station, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar that he was working on the Kaluwala check post along with two Homeguards Kamal Singh and Ram Chandra of Border Home Guard. He further reported that at about 6.45 a.m. a man drenching wet came to the Check-post and disclosed his name as Ramesh son of Bhalu Ram Kumar, resident of Ward No. 37, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar and said th...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Joshi Formulabs (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(NULL)396
ORDERT.J. Joice, AM:As both the appeals pertain to the same assessment year and are directed against the same order of Commissioner (Appeals), they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.ITA No. 7641Ahd/19902. This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20-12- 1989 for assessment year 1986-87. The first ground of this appeal pertains to disallowance under section 43B. The total amount disallowed comes to Rs. 1,89,724 inclusive of a sum of Rs. 17,670 offered by the assessee for taxation. The details of the amount disallowed by the assessing officer are as under :Rs.(1) Custom duty 1,698(2) Central Sales-tax67,019(3) G. S. T.1,422(4) Sales-tax (Bombay)90,441(5) Sales-tax (Calcutta)11,474 1,72,054According to the assessing officer the sales-tax collected has been credited to a separate account and payments made are debited to this account. Since the above said amounts are unpaid at the end of the accounting ye...
K.S. Parmar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC522; 1999(1)WLN119
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20.12.1997 (Annexure.3), by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated by the respondent No. 3 without holding an enquiry, by resorting to the provisions of Clause (b) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India; and dated 30.3.1998 (Annexure.6), by which his appeal has been dismissed by the respondent No. 2 as not maintainable.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, who was employed as Stenographer (Grade I) in the Office of the Director, Arid Forest Research Institute (A.F.R.I.), Jodhpur, has been removed by the impugned order dated 20.12.1997 without resorting to Rule 19(2)(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, 'the CCA. Rules'). Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.3.1998 as not maintainable, hence this petition.REQUIRE...
Rai Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC461; 1999(1)WLN129
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Earlier petition filed by the present petitioner was disposed of by this Court. (Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) by order dated 9.9.1998 with the direction to the Excise Commissioner to dispose of the representation of the petitioner after extending an opportunity of hearing within a period of two weeks. According to the directions, the authority heard the petitioner and decided his representation by an impugned order at Annex.20. The same is under challenge in this petition.2. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Dhankar has raised several contentions in this petition which have been raised before the authority by way of representation in para No. 24 page 77.3. Whether the petitioner is licencee or not is a question of fact and cannot be determined by this Court in its writ jurisdiction, that was the view taken by Hon'ble Dr.B.S. Chauhan, J. himself while disposing of the writ petition on 9.9.1998 and directing the authority to consider and decide the representation. Going th...
Smt. Kanchan Devi and ors. Vs. Akbar Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC60; 1999(1)WLN72
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of learned Civil Judge (JD) No. 6, Jodhpur dated 20.10.97 by which he dismissed the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at length.3. The controversy is very short. A civil suit for eviction was filed against the petitioners. Originally Shyamlal was the defendant who died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. After amendment of the plaint defendants submitted an application under Order 7 Rules 1 CPC that the legal representatives of the defendants were trespassers according to the amended plaint and, therefore, the suit should be dismissed. This application was dismissed by the impugned order. The controversy is whether after the death of original tenant his successors become trespassers and. consequently whether the suit filed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of ...
Hazi Abdul Gafar Vs. Suraj Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC499; 1999(1)WLN68
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12th August, 93 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 34/93, whereby the appellant's application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected.3. The appellant's case is that he was in possession of the property in dispute on 11.5.93, the date on which he was dispossessed in execution of a decree obtained by the respondent Suraj Mal against one Sewak Ram. Before his dispossession, when he came to know about the decree passed against Sewak Ram, he moved the Executing Court but his application was rejected. He filed a revision petition before this Court against the order of rejection of his application, but the revision petition was also rejected on the ground that he was a stranger to the decree passed in favour of Suraj Mal (respondent). It is further submitted by the learned C...
Hansraj Mahajan and Sons and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC289; 1999(1)WLN117
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for deletion of the following paragraphs from the petition on the ground that those paragraphs are not relevant for the decision of the writ petition:2. In para at page 7 from 'However, the Tribunal in its wisdom' upto 'dated 10th June, 1997' and in para 4 at page 9 from 'That as stated above' upto 'to the Recovery Officer'.3. The aforesaid portion/paragraphs shall stand deleted from the allegations of the petition.4. With the consent of the parties this matter is finally heard.5. The petitioner-company is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The New Bank of India has sanctioned and granted certain loans in favour of M/s Hans Raj Mahajan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. A suit was filed for recovery of amount of Rs. 15,68,439.72 alongwith interest in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, jalandhar City. Certain witnesses of the plaintiff-bank were examined before the Civil Court. In the meantime the Recovery of D...
Banwari Lal Sharma Vs. Jda and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC491; 1999(1)WLN294
J.C. Verma, J.1. The Jaipur Development Authority (here-in- after called as the JDA), a public sector undertaking, a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is covered by the statutory provisions called the Jaipur Development Authority Act (hereinafter called the JDA Act). It is engaged with the development of Jaipur in a planned manner. One of the functions of the JDA is to develop the land for residential purposes by framing the proper scheme. Land is acquired for the purpose of development where-ever it is so needed. It has got its own set of regulations and rules for developing and for disposal of the land. In pursuance of its statutory functions, the JDA had framed a scheme called 'Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme' which scheme was situated towards Northern-Western side of Jaipur and for the purpose of the scheme, the land measuring 350 hectares was to be utilised. This scheme was situated at 4 Kms. from the railway station and 4.5 Kms. from bus stand. It was proposed to carve...
P.N. Yogi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1736; 1999(2)WLC79; 1999(1)WLN66
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner, who is a Junior Engineer has challenged in this petition the order Annex. 8 dated 9-5-94 according sanction to prosecute him for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. That order is stayed while issuing notice by this Court and same is continuing till today. Today, this matter has come up for hearing on admission.2. Learned counsel Shri Shishodia for the petitioner firstly submitted that once the higher authority refused to accord the sanction to prosecute the petitioner then its subordinate authority cannot grant fresh sanction and that too without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submitted that by an order dated 9-2-93 (Annexure-3), the Deputy Secretary of the State Govt. refused to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under the Corruption Act. Only thereafter, on 9-5-94 the Chief Engineer accorded the sanction to prosecute him for the offence punishable under the Prevention of C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »