Rajasthan Court May 2001 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.
Roshan Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. Circle-i, Udaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN321
Tatia, J. (1). With the consent of parties, this appeal is heard on merits for final disposal. (2). The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Udaipur in civil case No. 3/1996 whereby the reference petition under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was rejected by the court below holding it to be barred by time in view of interpretation of Section 18(2)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short as 'Act of 1894'). (3). The brief facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 22.3.90 which was published in Official Gazette on 29.3.90.Thereafter completing the formalities, the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Udaipur on 7.8.1992. (4). After the Award dated 7.8.92, an application was submitted by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer on 6.2.1993 under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1894 and subsequently amended application under Section 18...
Heera Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN242
Chauhan, J.(1). The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to the respondents to enforce the award dated 20.11.98 (Annex.4) passed under the Land Acquisition Act and to quash the order dated 24.12.99 (Annex.6), by which the earlier award dated 20.11.98 had been cancelled.(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners claim to be the owner of the land in dispute in Aaraji No. 21e, situate in the Revenue Estate of village Vadgun, district Banswara, having certain constructions thereon and in respect of which a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued on 12.6.97 (Annex. 1). The substance thereof was published in the local news-paper on 14.7.97 (Annex.2). The parties entered into a compromise and the provisional award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13.10.98 (Annex.3) and the final award was made on 20.11.94 (Annex.4). Initially, the writ petition was filed with a di...
Karyapalak Engineer and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Tax Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN339
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Question No. 1:The precise controversy which has been raised by the petitioners in this group of cases is whether Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India, which exempts the property of the Union of India from imposition of all taxes by the State extends to the levy of Sales tax imposed by any enactment of the State on any transaction which can properly constitute a sale for the purpose of levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods. In exercise of the powers conferred under Entry-54 of the State list through the Law enacted by the State legislature.2. Provision Of The Constitution:For appreciating the contours of the controversy whether the immunity from imposition of tax envisaged Under Article 285 of the Constitution of India is absolute in terms irrespective of the nature of tax and reaches in-direct taxes also or the immunity is confined to the taxes leviable on property directly, it will be profitable to refer to the provisions of Articles 285, 287 and 289 of t...
Marudhara Patrakar Sansthan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC15; 2001(3)WLN440
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J. 1. Heard Shri B.D. Purohit for petitioner and Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, for the respondents.(2). The petitioner, Dr. Mahendra Bhansali is the President of Marudhara Patrakar Sansthan at Jodhpur. The aim and object of the Society as stated in the writ petition is to safeguard the interest of journalists and ensure allotment of plots and houses to them as per provisions of the relevant Rules. A photo copy of registration certificate and registered identity card issued by the State have been filed as Annex. 1 and Annex. 2. According to them, they are entitled for allotment of plots and houses as per provisions of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 which came into existence on 24th July, 1995. The State Government has also framed Statutory Rules vide notification issued on 7.3.1975. These Rules are known as the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. Sec. 17 of the Rules deals with allotment of residential plots at concessional rates, ...
Sumitra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC205; 2001(4)WLN478
Verma, J. (1). The petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the impugned order dated 18.5.2000 (Annex.4), rejecting her candidature for the training course to Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) on the ground that at the time of counseling, she had a child of less than 3 years of age and submits that any such condition imposed by the respondents in regard to age of child is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. (2). Vide notification dated 4.9.99 the applications were invited for selection on the post of ANM; The petitioner was fulfilling the qualification, however in the notifi-cation, a clause has been inserted that the candidates should have no child of the age of less than 3 years and they are not eligible for making application. The counseling was held on 5.9.2000 at Jhotwara. It was found at the time of counseling that the petitioner had a infant child of less than 3 years of age. Even though, the petitioner tried to convince the members that she had a...
Narpat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN666
Verma, J.(1). The petitioners are Mistris, on workcharge basis having been appointed under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Works Department (B&R;) Gardens, Irrigation, Public Health & Engineering and Ayurved Workcharge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called 'workcharge Rules'). The petitioner No. 1 Narpat Singh was appointed in the year 1969, whereas all other petitioners were appointed on various dates in the year 1970 to 1978, as detailed in Schedule-A attached to the writ petition. Some of the petitioners were made permanent vide Annexure-1 after completing ten years of service.(2). The post of Mistry has been encadred in Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called as 'Rules, 1967') and the work of mistry is being done both the Mistris appointed under 'Rules, 1967' and 'Workcharge Rules'. The duties and the work is similar. Right from 1981, the Mistris appointed in Irrigation department either under 'Workcharge Rules,' ...
Bharat Singh Vs. Vimla and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN199
Shethna, J.1. The case of petitioner complainant is that on 26.7.1980 he applied for permission from the Gram Panchayat for construction on the land of his owner-ship alongwith the map of the land. Permission was accorded to him on 31.3.1981 by the Gram Panchayat. On 4.10.1989, when he started to construct 'Pakka Wall' in front of his house, Ganesh Lal (Present respondent No.8) and Laxman Singh (father of Lal Singh-respondent No.10) and his brother Dilip Singh prevented him from putting up 'Pakka Wall' and tried to encroach upon his land. Therefore, he filed civil suit No. 47/89 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Sagwara against them for declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed in his favour by the trial court on 19.2.1996 and the said plot measuring 22' x 25' was declared to be of his owner-ship and in his possession. Accordingly, they were restrained from interfering with the work of putting up 'Pakka Wall.'2. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by...
Raman Malhotra Vs. Smt. Pooja @ Bittu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC178
Shashi Kant Sharma, J. 1. This criminal revision petition filed by petitioner Raman Malhotra is directed against the order dated 20.8.1999 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application of the non-petitioner Smt. Pooja filed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and has granted maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month for non-petitioner and Rs. 300/- per month each to her two daughters,2. In the matter record from the Family Court was called for. Notice to non-petitioner was issued. Shri D.D. Patodiya has appeared for the non-petitioner. Arguments of the parties are heard.3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner husband Raman Malhotra that the non-petitioner Smt. Pooja @ Bitto is his wife. It is contended that the petitioner husband Raman Malhotra still wants to keep with him his wife Smt. Pooja. It is then contended that he has not deserted her and, as such, the learned Judge, Family Court should not have passed the impugned...
Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3915
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J.1. By this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the accused-petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara for the offences under Section 283 and 304A, IPC.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are that on 20-5-99, a first information report No. 180 was lodged by one Jagmal Ram Bishnoi at police sta-tion, Bilara for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A, IPC. After investigation, chargesheet No. 111 dated 31-5-99 was laid before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 283, IPC. On 22-6-99, a report was filed by one Jogaram s/o Ramchand before the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jodhpur stating therein that on 20-5-99 at about 8.30 PM a tractor trolly duly loaded with fertilizers was negligently parked in the middle of Bilara-Bhavi road by its driver Jairarn without there being any signal of its being stationary and as suc...
State Vs. Harchad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR744]; (2001)IILLJ1593Raj
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated April 4, 2001 (Annexure 4) by which the claim of the respondent workman had been accepted by the Labour Court.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent workman claimed that he had worked from February 7, 1991 on daily wages and his services stood terminated vide order dated September 30, 1991 in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appropriate Government vide order dated September 3, 1993, made the following reference:'Whether the services of the workman Harchad had been terminated vide order dated September 30, 1991 in accordance with law and if not, to what relief he was entitled.'3. After considering the entire evidence led by the parties before the Labour Court and hearing their arguments, the Court came to the conclusion that the workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of terminat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »