Rajasthan Court July 2000 Judgments
inder Singh Saini Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC3; 2007(3)WLN51
J.C. Verma, J.1. The present special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1107/1994 decided on 27.2.1997.2. The main contentions as raised for consideration are:(i) that the circumstances of the present case when the petitioner is said to have availed the three chances in 1993 for qualifying the Patwar Examination Under Rule 282 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (here-in-after referred to as the rules) he had qualified in all the subjects in the examination except one subject and for the reason that his aggregate marks were more than 33%, therefore, he was entitled to appear once again in one subject only as per Rule 282 (iv);(ii) that the appellant had already served about 20 years as Patwari and in such a situation he has got ample experience on the job of Patwari and in such circumstances it shall be highly unjust and in-appropriate for the respondents to terminate his services for the reason t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Paras Enterprises Vs. Director, Department of Agricultural Market ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC499; 2000(3)WLN235
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition an advertisement dated 19.6.2000 (Annex.3) issued by the respondent Mandi Samiti for auctioning the vacant shops. As per the impugned advertisement, auction was to take place on 14.7.2000 at 11.00 a.m. i.e. today.(2). Today, in the morning, it was mentioned by the learned counsel Shri Bhandari for circulation of the matter when he submitted that if the matter is not heard and interim order is not passed today then it would be meaningless, therefore, permission was granted to circulate this matter after recess at 2.00 p.m.(3). Learned counsel Shri Bhandari for the petitioner made a grievance that as per the order dated 6.8.99 passed by my learned brother V.G. Palshikar, J in writ petition no. 2743/95, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent Mandi Samiti within two weeks from the date of order, but the same remained unreplied and not decided by the Samiti within a period of six weeks as directed by this...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rukmi Devi Vs. Hari Shanker and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC762; 2000(3)WLN110
ORDERGupta, J.(1). By this revision petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 9.5.2000, whereby, the case has been ordered to be put up on 4.7.2000. Suffice it to say that, this order does not amount to any 'case decided' requiring interference by this Court u/S. 115 CPC. As such, the revision petition has no merit and rather is not maintainable, and is hereby dismissed summarily.(2). However, vide order dated 24.5.2000, the learned trial court was directed to explain the circumstances as to why the matter is being prolonged so long when the provisional determination is to be made summarily after filing of the written statement, when the suit has been filed in the year 1992. The explanation has been received vide letter dated 30.6.2000, wherefrom, it is clear that the suit was filed on 13.10.92 and the written statement was filed on 24.8.93. Thereafter, according to the report, applications after applications have been filed whether for amendment of the written s...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Shree Chemicals and Minerals Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC334; 2000(3)WLN240
ORDERChauhan, J. (1). The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to the respondents to modify the Scheme for Granting Exemption of Sales Tax with effect from the date of grant of Eligibility Certificate and not to give effect to it from the date of application.(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacturing and sale of highdrated lime and other kinds of lime. The State Government issued a Sales Tax Exemption Scheme, 1989 stipulating clear terms and conditions for exemption of sales tax. Petitioner started commercial production on 13.12.1991 though applied for exemption by filing an application on 3.12.92. The Department pointed out certain lacuna and asked the petitioner to furnish the complete information in respect of the application. Petitioner completed the application on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Enterprises Vs. Director, Department of Agricultural Marketing a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj427
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition an advertisement dated 19-6-2000 (Annex. 3) issued by the respondent Mandi Samiti for auctioning the vacant shops. As per the impugned advertisement, auction was to take place on 14-7-2000 at 11-00 a.m. I.e. today.2. Today, in the morning, it was. mentioned by the learned counsel Shri Bhandari for circulation of the matter when he submitted that if the matter is not heard and interim order is not passed today then it would be meaningless, therefore, permission was granted to circulate this matter after recess at 2-00 p.m.3. Learned counsel Shri Bhandari for the petitioner made a grievance that as per the order dated 6-8-99 passed by my learned brother V. G. Palshikar, J. In writ petition No. 2743/95, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent Mandi Samiti within two weeks from the date of order, but the same remained unreplied and not decided by the Samiti within a period of six weeks as directed by this...
Tag this Judgment!Labhchand Vs. Rajkumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj428; 2000(4)WLC599
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiff against an order dated 16-7-99 of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 273/ 98 where by the suit was held to be not maintainable and liberty was granted to file objections in the pending execution proceedings initiated by respondents who are decree holder in Civil Suit No. 114/76 decreed on 22-1-93.2. The facts leading to this petition are stated in a nutshell are to the effect that earlier one Suresh Chand instituted a Suit No. 114/76 against Bhanwar Devi and others for permanent injunctions for restraining the defendants therein from (1) raising any construction over chowk,' pol, latrine and Chabutra's both the sides of House Nos. 1919 to 1921; (2) keeping a cabin on Chabutra and sewing machine in the pole, and (3) then letting out the cabin. The defendants therein remained absent thereby that suit proceeded ex parte and culminated into the decree having been passed ex parte o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR109]; (2000)IILLJ1466Raj; 2000(3)WLC6; 2001(3)WLN70
Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Manish Bhandari for the appellant and Mr. R.N. Mathur, Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State of Rajasthan.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 26, 1996 in SB. Civil Writ Petition No, 3712/1995 passed by a learned Judge of this Court, The appellant filed 3 a writ petition against the order of termination passed by the respondents. According to the appellant, the principles of natural justice as well as the procedures prescribed under the CCA Rules have not been followed. The appellant's father Gopal Chand Sharma was a Government employee who died on July 29, 1983 while in service. It is stated that at the time of death of the appellant's father, the appellant was an infant. The appellant's mother also died on May 6, 1979. The appellant's father married a second wife. When the appellant attained the age of 16 years, he moved an application for compassionate appointment and the appellant was given appointment by t...
Tag this Judgment!Manav Hitkari Sangh Vs. Rajkumar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ809Raj; 2001(1)WLC618
Madan, J. 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.4.1999 of the Addt. District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, whereby he quashed order dated 4.3.1999 of the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Jaipur City (West), who dismissed the 2nd application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff-respondent.(2). Manav Hitkari Sangh petitioner (defendant) is a charitable society duly registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. As per its alms and objects, the petitioner Society, has benevolent object so as to render services to the mankind more particularly in the field of homeopathic medicine. It is totally a privatesociety wholly dependent on the donation and funds received from the donors and the patients. It has one clinic at New Colony Jaipur in a rented premises and another one of at Shyam Nagar Jaipur. It has its own bye laws which contemplate powers of management & administration vested in the executive committee which has corresponding powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Enterprises Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC250; 2001(1)WLN686
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City on 25.2.2000 in Civil Suit No. 367/1995 whereby he decided issue No. 6 as preliminary issue against the defendant petitioner and in favour of the plaintiff respondent Bank.2. M/s. Subhash Enterprises (defendant) took loan of Rs. five lacs from Hindustan Commercial Bank subsequently merged in the Punjab National Bank (Plaintiff respondent), to which the defendant Nos. 2 to 8 were guarantors, out of whom defendant Nos. 4 to 8 also mortgaged their houses with the Bank. But aforesaid loan amount since was not being repaid, the plaintiff Bank instituted present Civil Suit for recovery of Rs. 4,42,100/- with interest towards maturity amount of Rs. 90,000/-of FDR No. 110/1983 which was ordered to be released by the State Commissioner under judgment dt. 23.9.1992 while it was pleaded with the Bank Security to loan in question.3. The defendant No. 1 partnership firm, through...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Manshapuran Hanumanji Ka Vikas Samiti Through Baba Shri Hanumanth ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj389; 2000(3)WLC1; 2001(1)WLN663
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this appeal, which is directed against the Judgment dated 1-2-2000 passed by the learned single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No, 158/96. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 24-11 -95 with the further direction to the respondents Nos. 1 & 3 not to allot the plot in question to any other person and that the same should be allotted to the appellant-petitioner Society.2. In the reply to the stay petition, the Jaipur Development Authority have questioned the locus standi of the appellant in maintaining the writ petition and that thewrit petition should be dismissed at the threshold in favour of the respondent department. The matter was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court who on a careful consideration of the submissions made at the time of hearing dismissed the same.3. We have perused the entire pleadings and the order under appeal and also perused the annexures f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »