Rajasthan Court July 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.
Bebe Bai Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC355; 1999(1)WLN666
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This Bench is specially assembled today for this type of cases. The petitioner is an old lady of nearly aged 67 years. This review petition is under defects. There are five defects. Mr. Goyal learned Counsel for the petitioner assures this Court that the defects will be removed within two weeks from today. On that condition Shri Goyal was heard on review petition.2. The attempt of Mr. Goyal was to argue the matter as if it is an appeal against our own judgment. Law on this point is very clear and well settled.3. The order can be highly erroneous, illegal or wrong. But that is not the scope of the review petition. The judgment may be open to review inter-alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but when error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, an erroneous decision is not permissible to be reheard and corrected. The review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be used as an ap...
Kishan Singh and ors. Vs. Nagar Palika Jaisalmer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(0)WLN666
B.J. Shethna, J.1. By an order dated 19.12.1978, the respondent No. 1 Jaisalmer Nagar Palika declared the property including well as personal property of the Jagirdar and issued no objection certificate. Shri Amba Lal Ojha - present respondent No. 2 (who has died during the pendency of the petition and in his place Chainpura Panchayat has intervened as late Amba Lal Ojha was representing the Village Panchayat) made an application under Section 285(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'Act') before the Collector, Jaisalmer. Meanwhile, the petitioner No. 1 sold the property in question to the petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 by registered sale deed on 26.12.1978. Finally, the then Local Self Minister Bhanwar Lai Sharma of the State Government by his impugned order dated 26.8.1994 set aside the order passed by the Nagar Palika, Jaisalmer on 19.12.1978. This order is challenged by the petitioners in the present petition. It is challenged mainly on the ground that before passin...
Mewa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj31; 2000(1)WLC105
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. Short but important question of law having public importance arises in this petition i.e. whether Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation') can be a local authority and a full time worker working with the Corporation incurs any disqualification under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'Act') or not ?2. Under the Act, 'Local Authority' is not defined, therefore, we have to go to the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955. Under Section 32(43) of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955. 'Local Authority' is defined which is as under :--'(43) 'Local Authority' shall mean a municipal board, committee, corporation or council, a district board, a Zila Parishad, a Panchayat Samiti, a Panchayat or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund.'3. Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act provides qualifications for election as a Panch or a membe...
Alka Vyas Vs. Principal, Rajkiya Sharirik Shiksha Mahavidhyalaya and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(0)WLN668
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner student passed the Senior Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1996 in IInd Division, therefore, she was qualified and eligible to get admission in C.P.Ed. (Certificate of Physical Education). She submitted an application with all requisite documents. She was taking part in different sports, therefore, she was entitled for 10 bonus marks. The merit list was prepared and she was at number 35. She was called for interview, but thereafter, her name was not included in the list, therefore, she enquired from the respondents as to why her name was not included. Thereupon, she was told that there was a discrepancy regarding her date of birth of 23.3.1979 in the certificate (Annex.4) instead of 23.12.1978, therefore, she has not been given admission. The petitioner was never informed in writing about this, therefore, she had filed this petition against oral order of denial of admission.2. While admitting this petition,...
Dr. Bajrang Soni and anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj365; 2000(1)WLC467
Shivraj V. Patil, C.J.1. These appeals are filed by the State of Rajasthan and in-service candidates aggrieved by the common order dated 22-12-1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 4546/98 and 5224/98 (reported in AIR 1999 Raj 187) only so far as it relates to quashing of the impugned order increasing reservation of seats from 25% to 50% for in-service candidates.2. For convenience, in this judgment, we shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are the following :--The petitioners having passed their M.B.B.S. Examination and completed the internship, are eligible for admission to various Post-Graduate Courses in different disciplines of Medical Science in different Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan. They are aggrieved in regard to increase of reservation of seats for in-service candidates from 25% to 50% and decreasing of the qualifying mark...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Marudhar Hotels (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR138(Raj)
1. Heard Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing for the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is directed against the order dated November 10, 1998, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, It appears that the assessing authority made a disallowance of Rs. 3,07,501 being interest attributable to interest-free advance to a sister concern of the assessee-company. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who deleted the disallowance of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 3,07,501 holding that no nexus was established between the interest-bearing' funds raised and the interest-free advance. The Department preferred a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated November 10, 1998.3. Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner, contends that the company might have borrowed ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Marudhar Hotels (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Raj)437; 2000(1)WLC112
BY THE COURT:Heard Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing for the Dy. CIT.2. This appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is directed against the order dt. 10th Nov., 1998, passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur. It appears that the assessing authority made a disallowance of Rs. 3,07,501 being interest attributable to interest-free advance to sister concern of the assessee-company. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 3,07,501 holding that no nexus was established between the interest-bearing funds raised and the interest-free advance. The Department preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dt. 10th Nov., 1998.3. Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing for the CIT, contends that the company might have borrowed large amount for the purpose of its business every year, but no explanation has been given for the huge advanc...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Hajari Alias Mithiya and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4447
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal by the State of Rajasthan arising out of Sessions Case No. 42/79 decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh Camp Chittorgarh on 5-2-1980 acquitting all the accused persons (eight in number) in the sessions case of all the charges levelled against them. The accused persons were charged under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and 149,I.P.C. and Sections 27 and 3 read with Sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence, acquitted all the eight accused persons and this appeal was preferred against that order by the State in 1980. This appeal came up for grant of special leave on 28-7-1980. The Division Bench then observed vide a speaking order of that date as under :-Heard Mr. M.D. Purohit learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the judgment passed in this case by the Sessions Judge Pratapgarh on 5-2-1980 by which the non petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 were acquitted of all the char...
Ram Chandra Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(0)WLN669
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This petition is required to be dismissed for the suppression of material fact that the Upsarpanch had filed similar writ petition before this Court at Jaipur Bench wherein initially the stay was granted against the revocation of the suspension order which was later on vacated on 23.4.1999 by the Division Bench, it was thereafter only that this writ petition was filed by Ward Panch without disclosing the fact that Upsarpanch had filed writ petition before the Division Bench of Jaipur Bench. The petitioner cannot, be allowed to play with the Court. Today Ward Panch has filed this writ petition, tomorrow some third person may file the writ petition. Mere change of the petitioner is not sufficient. It is the impugned order which has to be kept in mind by the Court. On this ground alone, without going into merits of the case, this petition is required to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. The stay granted earlier is vacated forthwith....
Shanti Mal Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN532
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th May, 1982 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 22/77. By the impugned judgment and decree the claim for arrears of rent for the period 1.5.1974 to 26.6.1977 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, total Rs. 3602.00 and mesne profit for the period from 27.6.1977 to 30.5.1981 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, total Rs. 4,818/- was decreed. The plaintiff was also awarded cost of the suit in respect of the claim of Rs. 3,682.00. The decree for eviction was not passed because the possession of the suit property had been taken by the plaintiff on 30.5.1981 during pendency of the suit. Learned trial court did not pass any order regarding arrears of water charges and some rent. Hence, this appeal.3. The facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated as below.4. The plainti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »