Rajasthan Court July 2000 Judgments
Jaswant Lal Vs. Nand Lal Mehra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC764; 2001(4)WLN452
Madan, J. (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.10.99 of the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 167/93 dismissing the defendant petitioner's application filed Under Section 10 CPC. The matter has come up for orders on the application filed by Shri R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent on 1.5.2000 praying therein for vacation of ad interim stay order dated 31.3.2000 whereby, further proceedings pending in Civil Suit No. 167/93 before the trial Court were ordered to be stayed till further orders. This revision petition was admitted on 31.3.2000. After the notice was served. Shri R.P. Garg put appearance and filed the aforesaid application for vacation. (2). At the time of arguments on the aforesaid application, Shri R.P. Garg learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent produced photostat copy of the certified copy of the judgment dated 8.5.2000 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 334/90, which was filed by Jaswantlal (present defendant petitioner)...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. Jagdish Thanwardas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC98; 2001(1)WLN516
Madan, J.(1). Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma petitioner who is a practising Advocate of this Court has preferred this revision petition against an order dated 10.1.2000 in Civil Suit No. 257/96 whereby the trial Court (ADJ No.8 Jaipur City) allowed defendant respondent's application with costs of Rs. 1000/- under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC for allowing two additional witnesses for being examined in his support.(2). A suit for eviction was instituted by the plaintiff (petitioner) against the defendant (respondent) on the grounds of : (1) default in payment of the rent, (2) sub-letting and (3) reasonable bonafide necessity. Written statement was filed by the respondent. The issues were framed. Additional Issues Nos. 9 & 10 were framed on 2.12.94 and 6.11.96 respectively. The plaintiff adduced his evidence and closed it on 11.2.99. The examination-in-chief of defendant who appeared as DW 1 was completedon 6.11.98 and thereafter since the plaintiff moved certain applications the trial Court first consid...
Tag this Judgment!ito Vs. Naresh Fabrics
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(NULL)386
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 8-3-1994.2. Ground No. 1 relates to the addition of Rs. 2,32,981 on account of unexplained investment in purchase of 40,731 meters. of grey cloth, not recorded in the books of account by the assessee.3. The facts giving rise to this ground are that the assessing officer worked out month-wise quantitative details of sales and purchases made by the assessee and noticed that sales made by it were exceeding the purchases made during the month of October, 1989. He according concluded that the assessee had not recorded the purchase to the extent of 731 meters of grey cloth against which corresponding sales had been shown. Consequently, the assessing officer added the cost of unrecorded purchases of Rs. 2,32,981 to the income of the assessee while finalising the order under section 143(3). The matter was carried before the Commissioner (Appeals) who deleted the said additi...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar and ors. Vs. Smt. Manjula Chauhan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC765; 2001(1)WLN524
Arun Madan, J.1. The short point which arises for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether in the light of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act where in a given case there is delay of 10 days in presenting the appeal against the interim order for fixation of interim rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 passed by the trial Court could such delay have been condoned by the Appellate Court on the assertions of the petitioners?2. Mr. Virendra Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that eviction petition was filed against the defendants (petitioners) on the ground of default in payment of rent, subletting, nuisance and non-user of the premises in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (West), Jaipur which was registered as Civil Suit No. 536/1993 by the respondents. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing the written statement. There was a dispute regarding rate of rent. The t...
Tag this Judgment!District Excise Officer and ors. Vs. Smt. Kalawati Hari Singh Choudhar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC60; 2007(2)WLN472
Arun Madan, J.1. The defendants (petitioners) have preferred this civil revision petition challenging the order dated 3.11.1999 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Hindaun City in Civil Suit No. 117/1999, whereby he dismissed an application of the defendants filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are that M/s. Kalawati Hari Singh Chaudhary and party carrying in business of country and foreign wine & beer under the contract for the year 1999-2000 sanctioned by the Excise Department of Govt. of Rajasthan for Hindaun Todabhim group of IMFL had instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction alongwith T.I. application in respect of two liquor shops situated one at village Gehroli, Todabhim Balaji Road and another at Kherali Crossing. Permanent injunction had been sought for restraining the defendants (Excise Authorities) from: (1) cancelling the contracts sanctioned for aforesaid two shops of Gehroli & Kherali Crossing in Todabhim Tehsil; (2) disp...
Tag this Judgment!Kanshi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC111; 2000(3)WLN18
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This matter arises under the Arms Act. In this case, licence of the petitioner-appellant under the Arms Act was cancelled by the Licensing Authority after giving due notice to him. Against that order, the petitioner-appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed, which was rejected by the learned single Judge vide his Judgment dated 6.5.1999 on the ground that the impugned orders passed by the Licensing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority do not call for any interference.3. Aggrieved with the order dated 6.4.1999 passed by the learned single Judge, the petitioner-appellant has preferred this appeal, which has come up for decision before us.4. It is contended by Mr. H.S. Sandhu, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant that the Impugned order passed by the Licensing Authority is hot based on any relevant material on record again...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanroop Chand Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC707; 2000(3)WLN15
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.4.1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. The writ petition was filed by the Management Committee of Hanwant School, Jodhpur questioning the correctness of the order (Annexure-5) dated 20.4.1995 passed by Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'). It was prayed that the order (Annexure-5) dated 20.4.1995 may kindly be quashed and it may be declared that the Standing Order No. 5/78 does not have any force of law ana could not be enforced in any Court of law.3. The main contention of the Management Committee was that the non-petitioner-appellant was appointed as Head Master in the School vide order (Annexure-1) dated 9.9.1991 on probation for a period of one year and since the services of non-petitioner-appellant were not found to be satisfactory, his services were terminated vide order (Annexure-2) dated 29.6...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C., Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Vs. Madanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ689Raj; 2000(3)WLN109
ORDERShethna, J. (1). Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). The respondent workman while working as driver with the petitioner corpo-ration was punished with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on the charge that when the bus was checked on 8.1.1981 and 14.1.1981 by the checking party it was found that some passengers were travelling without tickets. Without supplying the copy of enquiry report the penalty was imposed. On the reference made before the Labour Court, it was partly accepted and the order of penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was modified and reduced to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect on 14.11.1994. The same is challenged in this petition by the petitioner corporation. (3). It was submitted that Labour Court has no powers to reduce the penalty. On peculiar facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the order, of penalty itself was not maintainable and it was required to be set aside, but the same was nev...
Tag this Judgment!Dayal Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN90
ORDERChauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of termination/cancellation of appointment dated 13.1.97 (Annex. 3).(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the posts of Physical Education Teachers were advertised and the petitioner applied for the same.The selection process was held. His name appeared in the select list and he was appointed vide order dated 11.12.96 (Annex.1). Petitioner joined the said post on 23.12.96 (Annex.2). His appointment has been cancelled vide order dated 13.1.97 (Annex.3) on the ground that he had wrongly been selected treating as Scheduled Caste candidate though petitioner belonged to Other Backward Class and when this mistake was rectified, his name could not appear amongst the successful candidates. Hence this Writ Petition.(3). Mr. R.R. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that once the petitioner has, rightly or wrongly, been appointed in a permanent way, his services could ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Chandra Bose Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj3; 2000(4)WLC588; 2001(1)WLN477
ORDERB.R. Yadav, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajendra Prasad, at length. Perused the suspension-order, dated 6-1-2000, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby, the petitioner was suspended from the office of Chairperson, Municipal Board,Kishangarh, District, Ajmer; and also the amended suspension-order dated 24-2-2000, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereby, the petitioner was not only suspended from the office of Chairperson of the aforesaid Board but also as a member of the Board. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rejendra Prasad, I have gone through the orders impugned, Annexures 4 and 6, together with the charge-sheet. Annexure-1 and the explanation given by the petitioner, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 3. From a close scrutiny of the averments made in the writ petition and the averments made in the reply filed by the respondents, it is crystal clear that the State Government, in exercise of its power under Sub...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »