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.
Satya Bhama Devi (Smt.) Vs. Satwinder Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC697; 2000(3)WLN503
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The petitioner is a lady who became widow at a young age immediately after her marriage on the death of her husband Shri Virendra Prad-han, who died in an accident on 6.9.92. Deceased Virendra Pradhan was serving in Army and at the lime of his death in 1992 his monthly salary was Rs. 2063/-. On the death of the husband, the petitioner filed claim petition no. 33/93 before the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal'), Suratgarh through her advocate Shri Brij Lal Mishra claiming in all Rs. 6, 84,852/-. However, the said claim petition was transferred from Suratgarh to Sriganganagar by the order of this Court without any notice to the petitioner as stated in para no. 2 of the petition.(2). It is the case of the petitioner that she did not engage any other advocate except Shri Brij Lal Mishra, yet Shri Shyam Sunder Chugh, Advocate used to appear on her behalf before the learned Tribunal at Sriganganagar, and filed a compromise pursish (Annex.I) before t...
M/S. O.K. Gaur and Company and Another Vs. Rajasthan Finance Corporati ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj4; 2000(3)WLC736; 2001(1)WLN583
ORDERSingh, J. (1). Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.(2). This appeal has been filed u/S. 32(9) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 against the decree dated 24.02.1994 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 4A/1993 Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs. M/s. O.K. Guar and Company and Another.(3). A perusal of the record of the lower court shows that an application u/S. 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 was filed by the respondents in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur with the prayer for reliefs enumerated in para No. 16 of the application. Reply was filed by the non-applicant-appellant. Issues were framed and after hearing the parties, the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur passed the judgment dated 24.2.1994. The Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur passed the decree against the appellants for the sum of Rs. ...
idan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN363
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.1999 (Annx.4), by which the reference Under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms Act, 1956 has been accepted against settlement entries made in Samvat Year 2020 (corresponding to 1963).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the land in dispute, measuring 25 Bighas 15 Biswas of Khasra Nos.248 and 261 situate in the Revenue Estate of village Jayal (district Nagaur), belonged to deity Sri Raghunathji, whose Pujari was Shri Girdhari Das. The land used to be cultivated by one Hanuta Ram on behalf of the deity. During the settlement proceedings in the Samvat Year 2020. Hanuta Ram was shown, in column No. 5. as Khatedar - tenant instead of deity Sri Raghunathji through its Pujari Girdhari Das. When such entries came to the knowledge of the Additional District Collector, he sent the matter to the Settlement Commissioner, who, subsequently vide order dated 7.3.1998...
Chander Kaur and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC746; 2000(3)WLN137
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The Instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Board of Revenue dated 26.6.1989 (Annx. 2), by which the judgment and order of the Ceiling Authority dated 20.3.1986 has been up-held oh different grounds not agreeing with the grounds on which the said Authority had assessed the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and also against the review petition dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment and order dated 14.8.1989 (Annx. 3).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Ujagar Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, was assessed under the Ceiling Law (Chapter III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955) and the Authority, vide order dated 31.8.1971, dropped the proceedings holding that there was no surplus land with him. After commencement of the new Act i.e. the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, the proceedings were re-opened under the provisions of ...
Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN712
ORDERYadav, J.1. The present writ petition is posted today for disposal of an application moved for impleadment of Ram Singh Yadav in the array of respondents.(2). The brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the election of Gram Panchayat in State of Rajasthan were held in January-February, 2000 and the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Balawas, Panchayat Simiti Bansoor District- Alwar.(3). Indisputably, the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Balawas Panchayat Simiti, Bansoor District Alwar and a certificate was issued to him by the Returning Officer. It is further not disputed before me that after declaration of result, an election petition has been filed against the petitioner before Election Tribunal under Sec. 43 of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of Rules framed thereunder.(4). The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents are not authorised to make an enq...
M/S. Abu Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN143
ORDERShethna, J.1. The petitioner is a company which was doing the business of manufacture and sale of P.P. Sutli (Dori) since 1987. It is the case of the petitionerthat a change in the management was effected in 1993 and with the change, the present management also changed the products of P.P. Sutli to Canvas Shoes and Chappals which according to the petitioner was done with the permission from DIC, RFC and RIICO. It is the further case of the petitioner that it was granted benefit of sales tax exemption under Incentive Scheme. 1987 vide notification dated 23.5.87 (Annex.3). The petitioner was also granted the Eligibility Certificate (EC) and during the period from 1.4.88 to 31.3.1994, the previous management availed the exemption of Rs. 1,44,927/-.(2). Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Cl.4(e) r/w cl. 9(b) of the Scheme on the ground that it did not maintain the average production for next five years as required under the Scheme and, therefore, the exemption ava...
Dr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN620
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of rejection in the stay application filed by the appellant herein in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers :--'(1) declare the action of the respondents in not providing reservation to the disabled persons while making selections for PG Courses, as bad in law;(ii) further by writ of mandamus the respondents be directed to implement the Act of 1955 and the recommendations given by the Commissioner Disabilities and provide at least 3% reservations to the physically handicapped persons in the Pre PG Entrance Examination 2000 for admission to MD/MS Diploma Courses;(iii) the respondents be further directed to seek option from the petitioner for PG seats for the various faculties and grant him admission as per his merit vis-a-vis other physically handicapped persons;(iv) direct the respondents to prepare a separate merit for physically handicapped persons in the Pre PG Entrance Examination, ...
Kashi Ram and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj405
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21st Jun, 1985 (Annex. 3) whereby learnedBoard of Revenue accepted second appeal of the contesting respondents and reversed the judgment and order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 13-12-1983 (Annex. 2) by which it has affirmed the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the trial Court dated 30-5-1983 (Anex. 1). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case arc that petitioners filed a suit for declaration and possession in the Civil court against contesting respondents but the Civil Court rejected the said plaint, holding that it had no jurisdiction and plaint was presented subsequently in the Court of Assistant Collector Hanumangarh. Petitioners had alleged in the plaint that after purchasing land in dispute, they had appointed one Roop Ram (respondent No. 6) as Special Power-of-Attorney for the purpose of managing the land and depositing of instalments etc....
Rajan Products Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Raj)735; [2001]247ITR101(Raj); 2000(3)WLC11; 2001(1)WLN684
A.R. Lakshmanan, C. J.1. The parties to the three appeals are one and the same and, therefore, by consent of both parties all the three appeals were taken up together for disposal.2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant to quash the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated December 7, 1998, (exhibit 4), and for a mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to cancelor withdraw the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and for other incidental reliefs. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge on two grounds : (i) the learned judge has said that there is no infirmity in the assessment order passed by the Tribunal, and that (ii) there is an alternative remedy available for the appellant to approach the authorities under the Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by the above ruling, the writ petitioners have come up in appeal.3. An objection was raised by the Income-tax Department on the maintainability of the writ petition which has been filed agains...
Nainmal Vs. Maganmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC724; 2000(3)WLN96
ORDERGarg, J. (1). This is a defendant-appellant's first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirohi, by which he decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent filed under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC for Rs. 10,584.20 and also awarded interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 7297/- from the date of suit i.e. 7.11.1983 till realization of amount. (2). It arises in the following circumstances:- The plaintiff respondent filed a suit in the trial court on 7.11.1983 under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC alleging that on 8.11.1980, defendant-appellant, after understanding his old accounts, executed a khata Ex.1 in favour of the plaintiff respondent for Rs. 7297/- and further agreed to pay interest. Since the defendant-appellant has not paid the amount mentioned in the Khata Ex.1, the plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit. After presentation of the plaint, a summon under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC was issued to the defendant appellant and as per ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »