Rajasthan Court July 2000 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.
Saremal Vs. Board of Revenue Ajmer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC637; 2000(3)WLN508
ORDERShethna, J. (1). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. (2). The petitioner sold his half portion of house to one Bal Chand and executed the sale-deed for Rs. 30,000/- and the remaining half portion was sold to one Janwant Raj for Rs. 35,000/-. The sale-deeds are at Annex.1 and 2 respectively. They were got registered with respondent No.3 Sub-Registrar, Jalore who asked the respondent No. 2 Collector, Jalore to take proceedings under Sec. 47-A of the Stamps Act against the petitioner because according to him, the value of the property sold for Rs. 35,000/- (Annex.1) should have been Rs. 45,000/-. Accordingly, the Collector, Jalore issued notice to the petitioner and in response to that notice, it was pointed bout by the petitioner that half portion of the house sold at Rs. 30,000/- had 'Kachha' construction; whereas remaining half portion of the house sold at Rs, 35,000/- had 'Pakka' Construction and it was in good condition. In support of above, he filed his affidavit alongwit...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC340; 2000(3)WLN606
ORDERBalia, J.1. These two special appeals are against common order passed in Vinod Pareek & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2861/98) andRamchandra Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4537/98) on 18th August, 1999.(2). The facts giving rise to these appeals arc that the petitioners in these two writ petitions were members of the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service. The recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service is governed by the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. Under Rule 7, two sources of recruitment have been provided namely direct recruitment through combined competitive examination and by promotion of Tehsildars. The ratio between two sources from which recruitment is to be made to the service have been varied from time to time. Vide notification dated 21.8.97, the rules were amended and the ratio through direct recruitment and promotion was fixed as 66.7% and 33.3% respectively in place of 75% and 25%. The sa...
Saremal Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj431
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner sold his half portion of house to one Bal Chand and executed the sale-deed for Rs. 30,000/- and the remaining half portion was sold to one Janwant Raj for Rs. 35,000/-. The sale-deeds are at Annex. 1 and 2 respectively. They were got registered with respondent No. 3 Sub-Registrar, Jalore who asked the respondent No. 2 Collector, Jalore to take proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamps Act against the petitioner because according to him, the value of the property sold for Rs. 35,000/-(Annex. 1) should have been Rs. 45,000/-. Accordingly, the Collector, Jalore issued notice to the petitioner and in response to that notice, it was pointed out by the petitioner that half portion of the house sold at Rs. 30,000/- had 'Kachha' construction; whereas remaining half portion of the house sold at Rs. 35,000/- had 'Pakka' construction and it was in good condition. In support of above, he filed his affidavit alo...
Virendra Bhandari Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ396Raj
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. The two appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge. D.B. Special Appeal No. 477/1999 is against the judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20/1992, wherein the writ petition filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as, the 'Corporation's has been accepted and the second Reference, made by the State Government dated December 20, 1988 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act has been quashed. As a consequence, the order of the Labour Court dated August 14, 1991 has also been quashed. D.B. Special Appeal No. 536/1999 has been filed against the judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3778/1998, wherein the Corporation challenged the award dated March 20, 1998 passed on second Reference made by the State Government vide Notification dated December 20, 1988. Learned single Judge has set aside the award dated March 20, 1998, in view of decision rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20/1992. 2. The f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramesh Chand Modi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR323(Raj); 2000(3)WLN672
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant challenges the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated September 20, 1999, in Misc. Application No. 43/JP of 1998. The assessee-respondent preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That appeal was decided by the Tribunal on June 29, 1998, and in respect of that order a miscellaneous application was made by the assessee pointing out that grounds Nos. 31 to 42 of the appeal remain to be decided, this was a mistake apparent on the record and deserves to be corrected. The Tribunal, agreeing with this contention that the grounds referred to in the memo of appeal at Nos. 31 to 34 though taken by the assessee remain undecided, in particular quoted ground No. 34 and was of the view that this ground goes to the very basis of the order and though this ground was taken by the assessee in his appeal it could not be considered 'due ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramesh Chand Modi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Raj)424
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant challenges the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 20-9-1999, in Misc. AppIn. No. 43/Jp/1998. The assessee -respondent preferred an appeal against the order passed by assessing officer under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That appeal was decided by the Tribunal on 29-6-1998 and in respect of that order miscellaneous application was made by the assessee pointing out that grounds No. 31 to 42 of the appeal remain to be decided, this was a mistake apparent on the record and deserves to be corrected. The Tribunal agreeing with this contention that the grounds referred to in memo of appeal at Nos. 31 to 34 though taken by the assessee remain undecided in particular it quoted ground No. 34 and was of the view that this ground goes to the very basis of the order and though this ground taken by the assessee in his appeal could not be considered 'due to oversight'. On the aforesaid conclusion, the application w...
Diwan Roop Chand Vs. I.G. of Police and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN670
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.4.1993 (Annx. 7) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police - the Disciplinary Authority, withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect against the petitioner and the Appellate Order dated 15.11.1994 (Annx. 11) passed by Inspector General of Police, affirming the order of punishment.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Pratap Ram Mali, a Pakistani national, was residing in Jodhpur and he filed an application seeking permission for permanent residence in Jodhpur. A police inquiry was held and nothing incriminating was found against him. However, application remained pending. He applied for citizenship of India and again Police inquiry was held. Even at that stage, no incriminating information against him was furnished. During pendency of his application, he received information that his mother was ill in Pakistan, so he filed an appl...
Mangal Singh Moti Singh and Party Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC707; 2000(3)WLN230
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The Petitioner is a licence holder for country liquor, I.M.F.L. and Beer for the year 2000-2001 w.e.f. 26.5.1999 to 31.3.2000. According to him, he was granted licence for the shops including the Mokhampura shop. The said shop was approved by an order dated 27.5.99 Annex. 21. The liquor shop was running from 27.5.99 till 14.12.99. However, the licence for the said shop was cancelled and the respondent Excise Department registered a criminal case on 14.12.99 and also seized the liquor from the said shop. The F.I.R. is at Annex.3. (2). The grievance made by the petitioner in this petition is that without giving any opportunity of hearing or notice to show cause, the licence was cancelled and the sale of liquor is stopped verbally. Thus, the respondents are acting high handedly against the petitioner and without any order in writing, the petitioner's shop at Mokhampura is illegally closed. It was, therefore, prayed that the verbal orders issued by the respondents of n...
Satya NaraIn @ Satpal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC24; 2000(3)WLN492
ORDERMathur, J. 1. This appeal against the judgment dated 8.7.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh convicting the appellant for offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life was heard by the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Justice V.G. Palshikar and Hon'ble Justice R.R. Yadav. As both the Hon'ble Judges differed in their opinion, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 61A of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 as per the directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this appeal has been placed before me. (2). The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is as follows. The appellant Satya Narain @ Satpal was an exorcist and fortune teller in village Pukkabhadwa, District Hanumangarh. People used to visit him either for fortune telling or for exorcism. On 8.10.90 at the time of sunset deceased Balram and P.W. 6 Moduram went to the house of the appellant to know about their future and about the evil soul ...
Manohar Singh Vs. Sub. Registrar Mandal Garh, Distt. Bhilwara
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC614; 2000(3)WLN95
ORDERShethna, J. (1). Only on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order dated 20.3.99 (Annex.7) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Mandalgarh is required to be quashed and set aside as before passing that order, no opportunity was extended to the petitioner. (2). However, an attempt was made by the learned counsel Mr. Vishnoi for the respondents that there was a mistake in passing the earlier order and the said mistake was rectified subsequently, therefore, no notice was required to be given to the petitioner. (3). I am afraid that this submission of Mr. Vishnoi cannot be accepted because according to the respondents, it may be a mistake but it was a mistake for which the petitioner was required to be heard. If an opportunity was extended to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, he could have pointed out that no mistake was made earlier. (4). Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.3.99 is set aside. (5)....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »