Rajasthan Court August 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.
Smt. Farida Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC173; 1999(1)WLN683
B.J. Shethna, J.1. 'Is this Court bound to interfere with each and every order passed by subordinate authority in its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India?' Answer to this question 'No'!2. The petitioner has challenged in this petition, which is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order at Annex.4 dated 15.4.1998 passed by the Addl. Divisional Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 300 of the Municipality Act, 1959 remanding the matter to the Municipality to decide the case afresh after extending an opportunity to both the petitioner as well the contesting respondent No. 4.3. Learned Counsel Shri J.P. Joshi for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the revision petition filed by respondent No. 4 against the order passed by the Municipality, Rajsamand on 18.1.1997 (Annex. 1) is wholly without jurisdiction as the impugned order dated 18.1.1997 (Annex.1) was appealable under Section 170 (12) of the Municipality Act b...
The Regional Manager P.T.A.D.C.F. and anr. Vs. Rajesh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC593; 1999(1)WLN690
V.S. Kokje, J.1. By the impugned order the trial court had decided two issues which were treated to be preliminary issues. Issue No. 5 related to the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit in view of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Issue No. 8 related to the necessity of notice under Section 143 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act. The learned trial court held that the suit was entertainable by the civil court as Section 75 of the Act does not apply to the facts of the case. It was further held that since the suit was not covered by Section 75 of the Act compliance with Section 143 of the Act was also not necessary.2. I have heard the learned Counsel and perused the record. For better appreciation of the controversy it would be necessary to reproduce Section 75 and Section 143 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act 1965. The Sections are reproduced below -Section 75 --Dispute which may be referred to ar...
Anil Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj53; 2000(1)WLC550
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The case of the petitioner in short is that he is belonging to Other Back-ward Class Category (OBC) had appeared in the Rajasthan Pre Engineering Test, 1999 (RPET) examination held on 1st to 3rd June, 1999 conducted by the Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for admission to Technical Colleges in Jaipur to be given after evaluating comparative merits of the respective candidates who had appeared in the said combined entrance examination within the State of Rajasthan as well as outside State.2. In this regard the Co-ordinator of RPET issued an advertisement that as per the decision of the State Government, reservations shall be given at admission stage to the S.C., S.T. and O.B.Cs. in the ratio of 16.12 and 21% respectively for various Engineering Colleges in the State except Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur and other Regional Engineering Colleges with the State of Rajasthan for the current session 1999-2000. It...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Dulhe Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR708]; (2000)IIILLJ1485Raj
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed against an ex-parte Award dated November 19, 1994. The application for recalling the ex-parte award was filed by the present petitioners/establishment on August 19, 1995 and the same has been rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated January 12, 1999, holding the same as not maintainable for the reason that after the Award is published, the Labour Court became furtctus officio and cannot entertain any application to set-aside the award. 2. The view taken by the Labour Court that it has become functus officio after the award was published and has no competence to entertain the application to set it aside, is not in consonance with law. The issue is no more res integra, Unfortunately, it has not been brought to the notice of the Labour Court. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 606 : 1981-I-LLJ-327and Satnam Verma v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 294 :-1985-I-LLJ-79 Hon...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR667(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals. These three appeals are directed against the common order dated October 26, 1998, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in Income-tax Appeal No. 1716/JP of 1991. Since the order covers different assessment orders, three separate appeals are filed. But, the facts and questions of law that arise for consideration, are the same in these three appeals. The question that came up for consideration before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, was whether the Rajasthan State Text Book Board, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, was entitled for exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter called, 'the Act'). Though the assessing' authority took the view that the respondent-assessee was not entitled for exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not agree with the order of the assessing authority and rever...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cosmopolitan Education Society
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Raj)209; [2000]244ITR494(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur, under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'), aggrieved by the order dated October 26, 1998, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in Income-tax Appeal No. 1189/JP of 1994, for the assessment year 1990-91, by which, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that Cosmopolitan Educational Society, Jaipur (the assessee), is entitled for claiming the benefit of exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act.2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this appeal raises substantial questions of law, namely, (1) whether the assessee-society is entitied for claiming exemption under the provisions of Section 10(22) of the Act, even if its funds are being misutilised by the members of the society. (2) whether the relief under Section 10(22) can well be given to the asses-see-society wh...
Ghasi Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj22; 2000(2)WLC286
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 Ghashi Ram was the Sarpanch and father of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 has married to Ganga Ram. Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sosar Bai allotted land of 10 Bighas and 9 Biswas in Khasra No. 1036/58 of village Ghati on 30-5-1968, Petitioner No. 1 was allotted land of 16 Biswas in Khasra No. 1468/1286 of village Gram Sadri on 6-1-1975 and Ganga Ram, husband of the petitioner No. 2 and son-in-law of petitioner No. 1. Sarpanch was allotted 7 Biswas land in Khasra No. 129 of village Madri on 20-9-1976. The allotment made to all these three three persons belonging to one family on different dates in different villages and for different land, was cancelled by the District Collector. Raj Samand by his order dated 28-6-1995 (An-nexure 5) in exercise of his powers under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, The Rules') on the ground that Ghshi Ram, petitioner No. 1 in his capacity...
Mohd. Ahsan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2504; 2000(3)WLC136; 1999(1)WLN680
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. This writ petition is restored today and heard finally on merits.2. The petitioner is running a workshop in the name and style of M/s. Ahesan Engineering Works, Jodhpur near Jawahar Khana, inside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur, which is thickly populated area of Jodhpur. The petitioner applied for no-objection certificate which was granted by an order dated 25-6-1964 passed by the then Revenue Officer of Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The petitioner was also registered under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act vide certificate dated 10-8-1964. It is also registered with the Department of Industries and Supply for Small Scale Industry in 1972. According to the petitioner the people of Jawahar Khana, where the petitioner is carrying on his business, were running brothel for which the petitioner lodged complaint to the' local administration time and again. Not only that he also filed writ petition No. 442/90 with the prayer that District Administration may be directed t...
Hari Shankar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj26; 2000(1)WLC351
1. Heard Shri Vikram Purohit for the appellants and Shri Vineet Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the Union of India.2. The case was fixed on stay petition but since the notice was issued for final disposal of the appeal, we are deciding it finally.3. By the impugned order the learned single Judge dismissed the petition holding it to be involving disputed questions of fact, which could not be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the counsel, we are of the opinion that no disputed questions of fact are involved in the case as the disputed site is admittedly situated within the walls of Jaisalmer Fort. The dispute is as to whether Jaisalmer Fort area is a protected area as defined by the Ancient Monuments and Areheological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter called '1958 Act') which is purely a question of law.4. The petitioners/appellants complain that the respondents are trying to remove construction put up by them in an area which does not fall wit...
Dr. Anil Chaudhary and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj114; 2000(1)WLC321
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. Since the questions of law which have arisen for consideration by this Court and the relief sought for in these three writ petitions are identical and similar arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances, hence they have been heard jointly and are being finally decided by this common order. 2. Admitted facts in brief are that all the petitioners in these writ petitions after having qualified in their MDBS examination and undergone one year's internship, had qualified in Pre-PG Entrance Examination 1996 and they were allotted their respective placement in the merit list. Thereupon the petitioners were admitted in their respective specialities of MD/ MS courses and some of them were later on allowed change by reshuffling in their specialities. 3. The case of the petitioners is, as wouldbe evident from the writ petitions & its annexures, which show their speciality, the date of joining, completing the period of training and shortage in completion of total ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »