Rajasthan Court August 2001 Judgments
Jagram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN149
Kokje, J. 1.The petitioner was Reeled as Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Karoda, Tehsil Sehror, District Alwar. A complaint was filed against him that he was disqualified for being elected as Sarpanch and to continue as Sarpanch as he had more than two children. The matter was enquired into by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar, who made a report that the petitioner had an additional 5th children on 4.4.1998 and this child was given in adoption on 24.4.1999 to one Shri Rakesh Kumar. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, the respondent No.2, the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur after seeking approval of the State Government passed an order removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch in exercise of powers under Section 39 of the Rajas than Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1994). The petitioner has challenged this order in this petition.2. The contention of the petitioner is that Article 243-0 of the Constitut...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC366; 2002(5)WLN546
Rathore, J. 1. The State Government issued a Notification dated 18th July, 1979 for acquisition of the land in dispute situated at village Jhalana Chod, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. The Notification under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1953) issued on 22nd June, 1982 followed by the Notification under Section 17(4) and notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1953 and the lands of the respondents No.3 and 4 measuring 14 bighas 10 biswas comprised of Khasra No. 1 situated at village Jhalana Chod, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur were acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award on 14th May, 1984 which was later on modified on 28th November, 1985. It was submitted by the petitioner RIICO that in pursuance of the award full and final payment was made to the respondents No. 3 and 4. The respondents No. 3 and 4 did not challenge the award ai the relevant point of time. After more than six years of the award and ...
Tag this Judgment!Bablu @ Bulbul Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC248
Sharma, J. 1. Accused appellant Bablu @ Bulbul has come up in appeal before this court challenging the judgment and order dated 15.11.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, thereby convicting appellant Bablu under Section 302 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 3.2.1995, PW1 Mohand Lal submitted a written reporl Ex.P. 1 at Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur, thereby informing the Station House Officer that the residents of the locality have Informed at about 5.30 PM about a dead body lying in the forest behind Mahadev Temple and the dogs were eating the dead body. Upon this report, police registered a case vid...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. Ramesh Chand Modi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(NULL)191
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This miscellaneous application is filed by the revenue in respect of the Tribunal's order dated 20-9-1999, passed in M.A. No. 43/Jp/98, whereby the order passed in IT(SS)A. No. 11(Jp)/97 on 29-6-1988, was recalled considering the apparent mistake therein in not deciding the ground No. 34, raised by the assessee relating to the issue which was going to the root of the matter. The revenue's plea is that there is no provision in law which enables the Tribunal to revise its earlier order and as such there is a mistake in the Tribunal's order in recalling its own order which amounts to revision.2. We have heard both the parties and also perused the material on record. It is observed that the Tribunal decided the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of assessing officer for the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 vide its order dated 29-6-1998, in IT(SS)A. No. 11(Jp)/97. The assessee moved a miscellaneous application pointing out, inter alia, that ground Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Kanwar Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC415; 2001(4)WLN698
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The present special appeal has been filed by the petitioner appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.5.2000, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.2. The Collector, Pali issued a notice to the petitioner as to why the allotment made in her favour be not cancelled because she in her application for allotment has not disclosed that there is already existing land in favour of her husband to the tune of 43 bighas 5 biswas land. The said notice was issued to the petitioner. But the petitioner failed to appear pursuant to the notice. The matter was adjudicated ex-parte and the land allotted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority observed that the appellant in her application has not disclosed the holding of her husband. Since her husband was having a holding in his name, she cannot be consider...
Tag this Judgment!Durbeen Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC808; 2002(1)WLN672
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the orders dated 20.4.2001 and 17.5.2001 passed in O.A. No. 223/2000, O.A.No. 63/2001 and O.A. No. 117/2001 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus or certiorari for setting aside the orders dt. 20.4.2001 and 17.5.2001. The petitioner has further prayed that order dt. 10.5.2001 passed by respondent No. 2 thereby repatriating and reverting the petitioner to the post of Khalasi i.e. a lower grade to his Parent Division i.e. Delhi Division be set aside. The petitioner further prayed for direction to regularise him in the post of Clerk-cum-Typist from the date he has been promoted in the said post on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner has stated in the petition that following question of law arise for consideration for general public importance:A. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularised in Class III of material checking clerk/office clerk in t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhanwarlal Choudhary
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR637(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been made by the Department seeking a direction againstthe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that reopening of the case for the year under consideration was not valid, nor justified (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the income is not assessable in the assessment year 1987-88, despite the amended provisions of Section 45(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in allowing relief to the assessee by holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Omer Khan v. CIT : [1992]196...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1048]; 2001(3)WLC506; 2002(5)WLN492
Kokje, J. 1. These two appeals raise a similar question and therefore, are being decided together: 2. In appeal No. 596/97, there are nine appellants, but appellant in Government service and the result of the appeal is not going to affect them. The surviving appellant No. 2 Jagdish Prasad, appellant No.5 Hemant and appellant No.6 Subhash Chandra will only be affected by the result of the appeal and therefore, for all practical purposes, they are the only contesting appellants. Likewise, in Appeal No. 828/97, out of the seven appellants, Appellant Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been absorbed in the government service and appellant No. 1 Puran and appellant No.2 Om Prakash Dhaka are the only contesting appellants who will be affected by the result of the appeal. 3. In both the special appeals the writ petitioners alleged that they had applied for being appointed as Primary School Teacher as they were eligible for the post under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and ZilaParishad Service Rules, ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Parashar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj31; 2002(2)WLC230
Kokje, J. 1. Heard Mr. Himmat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohd. Rafiq, AAG for the State. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard. The petitioner is an elected member of Municipal Board, Pushkar, Ajmer. The petitioner's membership of the Municipal Board was suspended by the State Government by passing an order under Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The petitioner has challenged that suspension in this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the order suspending the membership of the petitioner, the only reason for such suspension given is that continuation of the petitioner as a member of the Municipal Board is likely to influence the enquiry pending against him. According to the learned counsel, discharging functions as a member of Municipal Board is in no case prejudicial to holding of a fair enquiry in the matter and that cannot be a ground on the basis of which an elected member ...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Kishan Vs. Urmila
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj404; I(2002)DMC607; 2002(1)WLC224
Kokje, J.1. The appellant Bal Kishan was married to respondent Urmila Sharma on 23.2.85. They lived together as husband and wife for about four months and after 19.6.85, they have not lived together. The appellant had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') for declaration of the marriage to be a nullity which was decided against him on 12.12.1986. The appellant filed an appeal against this decision in the High Court and the appeal was also rejected on 13.12.88. In the meanwhile, the respondent wife had filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in her favour on 12.12.1986. The appellant, thereafter, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for a decree of divorce on 22.3.90 on the ground of cruelty, desertion and non-resumption of co-habitation for a period of more than one year after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »