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.
Dr. Abhey Singh JaIn and ors., Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj78; 2000(1)WLC561
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Since the questions of law which have arisen for consideration by this Court and the relief sought for in these two 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 MBBS 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 would be evident from the Schedule and Annexures to the writ petitions, which show their speciality, the date of Joining, completing the period of training and shortage in completion ...
Smt. Preeti Agrawal Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC223; 1999(1)WLN677
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner was initially registered for allotment of a house in the year 1989 with the Housing Board and had applied for an independent HIG house at Amer under the scheme floated on 15.9.1989. The scheme was on the basis of Hire Purchase System. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was also deposited vide Annexure-1. She was allotted Code No. P-Amer-G-GRS-89. However, Amer scheme was dropped by the Housing Board but the petition was informed vide letter dated 27.12.1993 that one house of HIG category has been kept reserved by the petitioner. She was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 95,000/- as pre-allotment amount in three instalments. By suo-moto action her category was changed to out-right sale basis, copy of the letter is Annexure- 2. The petitioner protested against such an action of the respondent. Ultimately, the petitioner filed Civil Writ petition No. 2565/94 which was decided on 2.12.1994. The writ petition was disposed of on the statement made by the respondent ...
Nand Kumar Vs. Smt. Gayatri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC291; 1999(3)WLC744
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J. 1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated July 8,1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Cr. Misc. Case No. 301 /96 whereby the earned Magistrate refused to recall witnesses for cross-examination who were examined in absence of husband in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist.3. Perused the order impugned.4. It is true that the order impugned being an interlocutory order, no revision petition is maintainable within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. However looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this revision petition is converted into a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Conversion of this revision into a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. becomes necessary in the present case to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice....
Marudhara Conductors Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj269; [2002]110CompCas423(Raj)
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged realisation of certain amounts of money by way of interest by the respondent No. 1 Bank. The contention of the petitioner is that no such interest could have been charged in the absence of either statutory provisions or contractual undertaking. The charge of interest is therefore, void ab initio, it is liable to be quashed.2. The prayers read as under : 'F/l, The respondent be directed not to charge interest from the petitioner No. 1 on the amount after the same has been realised by any of the branches of Respondent No. 1 till this advice in regard to the receipt of theamount is received by Respondent No. 2.F/2. The Respondent be directed to refund the petitioners the interest which is impugned in this writ petition charged from time to time. F/3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the circumstances of the case warrant may be passed in favour of the petitioner. F/4. The cost of this writ petition may be awarded...
Tilak Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC521
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. It was decided to levy toll tax at the place 338 Kms. on National High Way No. 12 from Jaipur to Jabalpur on the road near Jhalrapatan city. Publications were made for Inviting tenders. Auction was held Out of 19 tenders received by the respondents, the petitioner was the highest bidder of Rs. 21 lacs for the period of one year w.e.f. 1-5-1995 to 30-4-1996. He deposited 10% amount of the bid money within 24 hours of the bid as required under Collection No. 3 of the auction. The receipt in regard to 10% amount is attached as Annexure 4. As per the conditions required, amenities were to be provided by the respondents. The petitioner is said to have sent 'representations for providing electric and water connections, construction of payment of Bitumin and construction of room as well as window which was the pre-requisite for collecting the toll tax. The petitioner had applied vide Annexure 5 for electric connection etc. the Executive Engineer, PWD, NHW Sub Division, J...
Prakash Chand Lunia Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR324(Raj); 2000(1)WLC362
J.C. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition as a karta of the Hindu undivided family, i.e., Hindu undivided family against the certificate issued by the Tax Recovery Officer under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner submits that for an individual liability of the petitioner, the property of the Hindu undivided family neither can be attached nor auctioned for recovery of the arrears of income-tax due from the petitioner, Prakash Chand Lunia, in his individual capacity. A copy of the notice has been attached as annexure A to the writ petition wherein it is mentioned that Prakash Chand Lunia (defaulter) had failed to pay the sum of Rs. 3,00,61,927 payable by him in respect of certificate No. 99/120 dated July 27, 1992, as forwarded by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ajmer, and the interest payable under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, the Tax Recovery Officer had certified under Section 223(2) of the Act that the amo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›