Rajasthan Court September 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.
Hemraj and Premshankar Vs. Divisional Commissioner Kota and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC355; 2002(4)WLN285
Rathore, J. 1. The respondent No. 3 Gomda son of Shri Narayan Meena sident of Chadi, Tehsil Keshoraipatan, District Bundi moved applications on 3.2,92 and 6.2,92 before the respondent No. 2, the Additional Collector, C.A.D. Kota, and requested that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 237/2 and 235/1 measuring 5 bigha & 10 biswas land was taken for land development by the Government and that on Khasra No. 235/5 measuring 2 bigha 2 biswas (Sivyachak) he is in possession from the last 40 years and that has to be regularised. He requested that Khasra No. 427 be entered in his name and the land measuring 1 bigha 5 biswa of Khasra No. 954 be declared Sivaychak so that the applicant may be dispossessed. The application was considered and was partly allowed by the Additional Collector, C.A.D., Kota, vide order dated 13.5.92 whereof it was ordered that the land measuring 1 bigha 5 biswa relating to Khasra No. 951, a Sivyachak land be got entered in the name of respondent No. 3 Gomda and further direct...
Rochees Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jaipur Development Authority
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj316; 2002(1)WLC148
Madan, J.1. Since both these appeals arise out of the common impugned order dated 14.8.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.5766/1997 (Rochess Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Jaipur Development Authority), they are being decided by this common order.2. The appellant Rochees Hotels Pvt. Ltd. is a Public Limited Company Incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 while appellant Ishwar Dass Is the Director of the said appellant Company. The appellants entered into an agreement dt. 10.5.1987 for purchase of 2450 Sq.Yds. of land situated at Tonk Road, Jaipur which was executed between Shri Parmanand Ojha in his personal capacity as well as in the capacity of Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of Smt. Padmawati Ojha. On the basis of above agreement dt. 10.5.1987, the registered sale deeds were executed in favour of Jshwar Dass, Laxman Dass and Nanak Dass sons of late Shri Rochi Ram for sale of the af...
Ram Kishore Meena Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC479
Madam, J. 1. By way of aforesaid appeal the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.8.96 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant ex-parte. By the said writ petition the petitioner has challenged his dismissal from the services of respondent No. 4 the Rajastan Social Welfare Advisory Board dt. 27.4.95, Annexure-31 to the petition issued by respondent No. 6Smt. Sariya Khan, Ex-Chairman, Rajasthan Social Welfare Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Raj. Board.').2. The main function of the Central Social Welfare Board and the Stale Advisory Board briefly stated are that the Govt. of India had under the Ministry of Education vide its Resolution dt. 12.8.1953 set up the Central Social Welfare Board with the object of assisting the voluntary organisations throughout the country to maintain and develop their existing programmes and to dovetail them into the general pattern. The Govt. of India, Department of...
Aalishan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC522
Rathore, J. 1. The petitioner firm is dealing in consumer items like T.V. Video, Refrigerators etc.. The main business of this firm is of selling the aforesaid items, after purchasing the same from manufacturers of the aforesaid consumer items on retail and whole sale basis in District Ajmer, Subject to certain limitations, which are governed by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1962). 2. On 21.6.95, two different consignments of 165 litres Kelvinator Freidges were dispatched by Expo Machinery Ltd., Jaipur; one consigment dated 21.6.1994 was of 18 Refrigerators and another one was of 30 Refrigerators. Both the consignments' were despatched by vehicle No. RJ-01/GO 302 of J.K. Transport Company. The aforesaid Vehicle carrying the Refrigerators reached Ajmer at about 11.30 p.m. and suo moto stopped at the octroi post. In accordance with Rules of 1962 an oral declaration was made about the consignment and both the despatch bills w...
Smt. Saroj Vs. Gaya Prasad Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC760; 2002(5)WLN525
Misra, J. 1. A suit for eviction was filed against the defendant/petitioner by the plaintiff-respondent, which was dismissed exparte against which the defendant/petitioner filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. The same was dismissed by the trial Court vide its judgment order dated 12.1.2000 and the appeal against the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. On perusal of the same it is sufficiently apparent that the petitioner who is a tenant in the suit premises deliberately avoided to appear in the suit on several occasions and thus, committed default not only on one occasion, but numerous occasions ever since 1999 upto the year 2000 without any sufficient or just cause. 2. Assailing the aforesaid orders, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a party to the suit should not be made to suffer on account of default committed by his/her advocate. It is n...
Shetra Pal Vs. Smt. Renu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj159; 2002(1)WLC559; 2002(2)WLN384
Tatia, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.2. In this case, the trial court refused the injunction by order dated 11.4.2001 in a suit filed by the appellant plaintiff. According to the learned counsel for the appellant since appellant is in settled possession of the land in dispute, therefore, he has a right to protect his possession and no one can take law in his own hands to evict him, even a true owner has no right to dispossess him from the land in dispute. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the appellant plaintiff was in possession when the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the Shri Bhura Ram. The title to the land vesting in Bhura Ram is not in dispute and therefore, when the plaintiff was in possession for about 20 years then his settled possession cannot be disturbed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Bhura Ram executed a sale deed dated 20.4.1981 in favour of 76 persons and by...
Sumer Chand Chhajed and anr. Vs. Administrator (S.D.M.) Gandhi Shiksha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj76
Tatia, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.8.2001 passed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Gulabpura in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2001 by which the appeal of the non-petitioners was accepted and the order of injunction dated 13.8.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulabpura was set aside by the appellant Court in a matter of injunction sought by the plaintiff-petitioners against the defendant-non-petitioners.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the appellate Court vacating the stay order is absolutely illegal and the learned appellate court has not cared to deal with the grounds taken by the Court of first instance before setting aside the order of the trial court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Judge of the appellate court failed to peruse the point in controversy, the law involved in the matter and also under wrong impression of law, exercised its jurisdiction and set asid...
Sumer Chand Chhajed and anr. Vs. Administrator (S.D.M.), Gandhi Shiksh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN451
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23-8-2001 passed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Gulabpura in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2001 by which the appeal of the non-petitioners was accepted and the order of injunction dated 13-8-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulabpura was set aside by the appellate Court in a matter of injunction sought by the plaintiff-petitioners against the defendant-non-petitioners.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the appellate Court vacating the stay order is absolutely illegal and the learned appellate Court has not cared to deal with the grounds taken by the Court of first instance before setting aside the order of the trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Judge of the appellate Court failed to peruse the point in controversy, the law involved in the matter and also under wrong impression of law, exercised its jurisdiction ...
Virendra Kumar Vs. M.A.C.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1322; RLW2003(1)Raj444; 2002(2)WLC66
Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is wholly misconceived and misplaced petition at this stage under Article 227 of the Constitution against the interim award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bandikui, District Dausa.2. Here the owner of the offending vehicle is before this Court.3. Under the impugned award, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the Assurance Company is not liable to make the payment of the amount of the interim compensation under the no fault liability principle. This has been held on the basis that the cheque given for the amount of premium of the policy has been dishonoured.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in cases of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sita Bai and Ors. (1), New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi and Ors. (2), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi (Smt.). and Ors. (3), and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi and Ors. (4), conten...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. H.H. Rajdadi Smt. Badan Kanwar Medical ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR294(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, to submit the statement of case and refer the questions of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal's order dated March 25, 1998.2. The application under Section 27(1) moved before the Tribunal has been rejected on the ground that no referable questions of law arise out of its appellate order. The proceedings have been initiated against the respondent, H.H. Rajdadi Smt. Badan Kanwar Medical Trust, in pursuance of the order under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and assessment was made on the trust under Section 16(3) by the assessing authority by issuing notice to it through its trustees.3. On appeal the Commissioner of Wealth-tax quashed the assessment orders on the ground that the trust was not assessable entity under the Wealth-tax Act, against which n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »