Rajasthan Court September 2000 Judgments
Babulal Vs. Rajendra Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN560
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant tenant against the judgment and decree of learned lower Appellate Court whereby, by reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court the plaintiffs suit for eviction from the suit premises has been decreed. Obviously the learned trial court had dismissed the suit.2. The suit was filed way back on 10.12.1987 against three defendants being Bhanwarlal, Balchand and Babulal. However pending litigation Bhanwarlal expired and his legal representatives have been taken on record. In the original plaint the case of the plaintiff was that the suit premises is on rent with the defendants No. 1 and 2. It was also alleged that the ground of eviction as originally pleaded was that the defendant No. 1 has constructed his house In the name of his wife while the defendant No.2 has constructed his house at New Pali Road and thus neither of the defendants No. 1 and 2 nor any of their family members live in the suit premises. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ935Raj; 2001(2)WLN106
ORDERDr. Lakshmanan, CJ.(1). This special appeal was filed by the widow and children of late Gopi Kishan who was working as Sub Inspector of Police against the order dated 16.3.98 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1301/92 (filed by Gopi Kishan). The said Gopi Kishan joined the service of the Government of Rajasthan as Constable on 15.8.61. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1967 and as Assistant Inspector of Police in 1977 and, thereafter, to the post of Sub Inspector of Police on 17.08.81. The said Gopi Kishan on account of certain family circumstances served a notice for voluntary retirement under Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1958 dated 18.9.91 (Annex. 1). The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer passed an order on 1.11.91 (Annex.3). In view of the voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.91 (Annex.3). In view of the voluntary retirement Gopi Kishan was transferred from Ajmer to Nagaur. Subsequently, the said Gopi Kishan had decided to wit...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Smt. Sohan Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN554
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants who are legal representatives of original defendant tenant Megh Raj against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court whereby, by reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiffs suit has been decreed for eviction from the suit shop. The suit has been decreed solely on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity, by also deciding the questions of comparative hardship and partial eviction in favour of the plaintiff.2. Brief facts of the case are that it is was back on 10.8.1976 that the deceased plaintiff Bherulal had filed present suit against the deceased defendant tenant Meghraj for eviction from suit shop situated at 242, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur inter alia on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of deceased plaintiff. This suit was dismissed by the learned trial court on 28.10.1980, appeal against that decree also failed on 18.8.1983. While during pend...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Avinash Bishnoi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC383; 2007(3)WLN47
J.C. Verma, J.1. Dr. Avinash Bishnoi in Civil Writ petition No. 6789/1994 was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon (Dentistry) on 16.10.1980. His date of birth was 8.8.1954. In response to the advertisement dated 29.11.1992 for a short term post of Assistant Professor in various subjects of Medical Science were advertised. The maximum age was 35 years as prescribed on 1.1.1993. The petitioner had applied for the said post. Though he was interviewed, but he was not appointed. He sent many representations. But lateron came to know that as per Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules; 1962 (here-in-after referred to as the rules), he was held to be over age. Even though the case of the petitioner was that even for an urgent temporary appointment, the relaxation is to be given to the employees who were is service upto 40 years and he was of the age of 38 years at that time, as such he was within age limit. No relief was given to him. He filed a civil writ petition No. 2178/1993 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Vs. M/S. Vaishali Enterprises, ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLN136
ORDERDr. Lakshmanan, CJ.1. This reference application has been filed against the order dated 24.3.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in R.A. No.2/JP/1999 arising out of I.T.A. No. 1647/JP/92 for the assessment year 1986-87.(2). The brief facts giving rise to this reference application are: that the assessee had furnished statement of advance of tax on 9.9.1995 showing advance tax payable at Rs. 15,167/- on the income of Rs. 1,21,530/-. However, assessment was completed on the income of Rs. 14,64,730/- on which the assessed tax came to Rs. 3,37,535/-. In view of these facts, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under s. 273(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at Rs. 20,000/-.(3). Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who upheld the orderof the Assessing Officer vide his order (Annexure/2) dated 2.6.1992. Thereafter, the assessee preferred a second...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2000
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj64
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 9.1.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 2/9-1, by which he convicted the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' R.I.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:-On 19.10.1993 at about 3.30 AM, PW11 Shanti Swaroop, S.H.O., Police Station Bijoliya District Bhilwara made a parchakayami (Ex.P/16) to the effect that at about 3.15 AM, PW2 Dr. Durga Shankar, who was posted as Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, Bijoliya informed on telephone to him that the accused appellant has killed his wife Tara (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) with a knife and he further requested that necessary action be taken. On this information, PW11 Shanti Swaroop reached the hospital and found the dead body...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Bala Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ67Raj; 2000WLC(Raj)UC720; 2001(2)WLN145
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.1. This writ-appeal is preferred by the widow of late Shri Hari Narain Kothari against dismissal of her writ petition No. 1440/2000 by order dated 3.7.2000. The appellant's husband died on 10.11.86 while in government service. He was working as L.D.C. in the Department of Industries. At the time of death of the husband, the appellant was having two minor sons. The appellant being a widow applied for appointment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (in short, to be called 'the Rules of 1975' hereinafter) on the post of Class IV after the death of her husband.(2). At the time of recruitment, no-objection certificate given by one Smt. Chanda Devi the first wife of the deceased Government-servant-was also submitted by the appellant before the Director, Industries who was the Appointing Authority (Annex. 1). The first wife Smt. Chanda Devi had received all the payments of her husband Hari Narain Kothari r...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Aara (Smt.) and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ76Raj; 2001(1)WLC349; 2001(1)WLN456
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.U. Jangid, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, assisted by Mr. G.L. Khatri.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 12, 1998 passed in SBCW P. No. 1543/1998. The appellant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased Govt. employee, preferred the said writ petition to quash Anx. 10 dated January 21, 1998 and to direct the respondents to provide suitable appointment to appellant No. 2 on compassionate ground under the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1996). The 2nd appellant, for whom the compassionate appointment was sought, is the sister's son of the widow of the deceased, namely the 1st appellant. Vide communication dated January 21, 1998 respondent No.3 had informed the appellant that in view of the Rules of 1996, appellant No. 2 cannot be given appointm...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Durga Prasad Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC308; 2007(2)WLN156
J.C. Verma, J.1. A suit for eviction was filed by the respondent plaintiff in November, 1985 against the appellant on the ground of recovery of arrears of rent, material alteration and nuisance etc. in respect of the disputed premises.2. Vide order dated 10.12.1986, the rent Court had determined the provisional rent as required under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (here-in-after referred to as the Rent Act) with interest etc. vide another order dated 17.7.1987, the Rent Court had directed the appellant defendant to deposit month to month rent in the bank account of the plaintiff. But it was stated that no such rent had been deposited in the bank account and because of such defect, the defence of the appellant was ultimately struck off vide order dated 5.2.1992, which order is under challenge.3. It is the case of the appellant that the rent stood deposited in the Court which is the admitted fact in the order impugned dated 5.2.1992 and, therefore, the...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Vs. Satyendrapal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj23; 2000(4)WLC572; 2001(1)WLN433
J.C. Verma, J.1. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the Bank of Baroda, against the order dated 4-5-2000, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he had allowed the application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC by Satyendra Pal Khurana, the plaintiff respondent No. 1 in the suit who is the real contesting respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are that a firm named as M/s. R.S. Rubber Industries Ltd. Jaipur, consisting of five partners namely; Tilak Raj Parnami, Smt. Usha Parnami, Satyendra Pal Khurana, Smt. Bela Khurana and Smt. Lajwanti Khurana, had started a business on the plot allotted to them by the RIICO. The firm had taken a loan from the present petitioner. The property on which the business had started was allotted in the name of the business had started was allotted in the name of the partners of the firm. The loan as taken by the firm remained unpaid with the result that the appellant Bank had ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »