Rajasthan Court August 2000 Judgments
Prem Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC664; 2001(1)WLN626
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The elections for Municipal Board, Sadri are fixed on 20.8.2000 i.e. 3 days from today for which a notification was issued on 4.8.2000 under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules'). Nomination papers were required to be filed between 4.8.2000 to 3.00 P.M. of 8.8.2000. Scrutiny of nomination papers was to be done on 9.8.2000. The date of withdrawal was 11.8.2000. Symbols were to be given to the contesting candidates on 12.8.2000.2. The petitioner filed his nomination form as an O.B.C. candidate and a nominee of Indian National Congress Party from Ward No. 14 reserved for O.B.C. on 8.8.2000. However, the authorisation from the Congress Party was offered to the respondent No. 4 Retuning Officer only on 8.8.2000 at 3.20 P.M. whereas the same authorisation was supposed to be submitted latest by 3.00 P.M. of 8.8.2000.3. The nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer on 9.8.2000 only on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!Anandi Lal Vs. Smt. Sarju Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC547; 2002(1)WLN453
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal in a suit for eviction of shop on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff decreed by both the learned court below. Of course the suit was also filed on the ground of default but then the defendant was given benefit of Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter after referred to as 'the Act'). Hence, I need not refer to facts.2. A perusal of the judgments and decree shows that the question of reasonable and bonafide necessity and comparative hardship is covered by issues No. 2, 2A and 3 which was decided by the learned courts below against the defendant. In the pleadings no indication was even given from either side as to 'whether no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing a decree in respect of a part of the premises only', (such expression shall hereinafter referred to as 'partial eviction').' Not only this even during evide...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Khalsa Travels
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj49; 2001(1)WLN17
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. Since common questions of law arise in all these writ petitions and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In this case, there is no dispute that all the permits were surrendered by the vehicle operators and they were accepted or received by the concerned authorities. Once the Registration Certificates were surrendered and were in fact with the Department, the vehicles could not be plied on the roads. Therefore, in our opinion, the vehicle operators are entitled for remission of tax for the period of surrender irrespective of the period mentioned in Section 4B of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. 3. The supreme Court in a very recent judgment reported in State of Gujarat v. Kaushikbhai K. Patel (2000) 6 SRJ 310 : (AIR 2000 SC 2175) in an identical matter held that insistence to satisfy the State Govt. or authorised Officer as to reasons beyond control of registered owner or person in possession fo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ678Raj; 2001(1)WLN682
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State against the Award of Labour Court, Jodhpur dated January 22, 1993 directing the appellant to reinstate the second respondent Kishna Ram Bishnoi with consequential benefits.2. At the instance of second respondent Kishna Ram Bishnoi (hereinafter referred to as 3 'workman'), a reference was made to the State Government. Workman filed the statement of claim stating that in the year 1982, he was engaged as Helper in village Karda-Diga Water Supply Project. In the year 1985, he was given status of work charged employee. He was being paid a sum of Rs. 548/- per month. However, abruptly by order dated October 19, 1987, he was removed from service. A reply was filed on behalf of Asstt. Engineer, PHED, Sub-Division, Raniwada, Distt., Jalore. It was averred that workman was appointed as Assistant in the year 1982. He was given duty on water pump. He was not regularly attending the duty,...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Metals Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC311(Raj); 2001(4)WLC115; 2000(3)WLN445
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. In these writ petitions, since common questions of law are involved and, therefore, we deem it proper to decide them by a common order.2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), It is relevant to mention here that except Writ Petitions Nos. 2541 of 1999 and 1103 of 2000, all the five writ petitions were initially filed as original applications before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur, and on its abolition, they have been transferred to this Court.3. In all these writ petitions, while the goods were in transit with the transporters, the goods were checked in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 78 of the Act and on finding that either documents required under Sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the Act were not being carried along with the goods or there was some deficiency in the particulars of the documents or some of the documents...
Tag this Judgment!Sangmarmar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC390; 2001(1)WLN581
B.J. Shethna, J.1. What is the reason for filing this petition is mentioned in para 13 of the petition namely, that a general notice dated 6.2.1996 (Annex. 10) issued by the authorities whereby the people of that area at large were informed that many encroachments at thorough fares are made at the end of the roads by putting up stones of various types, wood, bhati, tables and benches, chhapers and cabins. It has further been stated in the notice that near the Station and Main Bazar and public places have been practically blocked by putting up hand carts which is obstructing the ingress and outgress. These illegal encroachments were to be removed within a period of 7 days otherwise the Municipal Board will do it at the cost of the concerned persons. The petitioner apprehends that because of this notice, the construction put up by it on the land in question may be demolished by the respondents though the said land was converted and the permission was also obtained by the petitioner for e...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rukma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ596; 2000(3)WLC102; 2001(1)WLN108
ORDERYamin, J.1. This is an appeal by Smt. Rukma who has been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur camp at Deedwana vide his judgmentdated 30.1.1985 for offence u/S. 306 IPC and sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment.(2). Briefly stated, Smt. Rukma's son was married to deceased Bhagwati. The marriage took place about eight years ago as admitted by Smt. Geeta PW-9 who is the mother of deceased. It is alleged that Smt. Bhagwati committed suicide on 18.7.1984 by burning herself after sprinkling kerosene oil on her body as the accused appellant had abetted the commission of suicide. Smt. Rukma is the mother-in-law of Smt. Bhagwati and used to pester her, abuse her, make allegations about theft, used to allege that she was of bad character and had illicit relations with her father-in-law. On 18.7.1984 Smt. Rukma, appellant quarreled with Bhagwati and abetted her to burn and die. Smt. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC612; 2001(3)WLN73
ORDERBalia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.(2). The petitioners challenge the non-acceplance of option given by petitioner Bhanwar Singh for surrendering the land to the extent declared surplus which has not been accepted by the respondent because Bhanwar Singh opted to surrender that land in respect of which transfer made by him had not been recognised for the purposes of computing the land held by him under the Ceiling Act.(3). It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the lands 'which have been transferred but such transfers have not been recognised for the ceiling purposes in computing the lands held by Bhanwar Singh, the same cannot be considered to be an encumbered land within the meaning of Sec. 30-E of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and, therefore, the respondents are bound to accept the opinion given by him for surrendering such land.(4). The contention is not well founded. The question of recognising the lands as part of the holdings of Bhanw...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR747]; (2001)ILLJ1593Raj; 2001(1)WLN346
B.J. Shethna, J.1. From the operative part of the order passed by the learned single Judge dated March 10, 2000 in the writ petition modifying the award passed by the Labour Court, it is clear that the said order was passed by the learned single Judge with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Once the award was modified on the consent of the parties, then in our considered opinion, it is not open for the appellant to challenge the same by way of special appeal.3. However, learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Lodha submitted that he had only consented for 30% of the back-wages and not regarding reinstatement.4, If it is so, then in our considered opinion, the appellant should approach the learned single Judge by way of review of his Lordship's order in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of State of Makarashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249 : 1982 (2) SCC 463.5. If the appellant files review petition within one month from today along w...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC558; 2001(1)WLN311
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioner-National Insurance Company Ltd. has challenged the order dated 25.11.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neema-ka-Thana by which the application filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company for its impleadment has been rejected. This application has been filed on the averment that the owner of the vehicle which caused accident and was insured with the petitioner-Company did not appear before the Tribunal and contested the claim as a result of which an ex-parte award was bound to be passed in favour of the claimants and the amount determined therein would be borne by the petitioner-Insurance Company since the vehicle in question is admittedly insured with the petitioner-Company. In the application, the petitioner-Insurance Company clearly stated that since the owner and driver are not interested in contesting the claim for grant of compensation and it is the petitioner- Insurance Company which will have to make the payment which may be f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »