Rajasthan Court May 2002 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.
Smt. Bhanwari Devi and ors. Vs. Ramlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj2012; 2002(5)WLC911
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act, 1925') is filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 17.1.2002 of the District Judge, Sikar in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.87 of 1999.2. The appellant filed application under Section 372 of the Act, 1925 for succession certificate.3. The learned court below under its order aforestated granted this application and succession certificate has been issued in favour of the appellants and the respondents No. 1 and 2 in proportion of 1/3rd each in respect of the amounts mentioned in division VII of the application, hence this appeal. This appeal is presented on 9th of March, 2002. The office has pointed out the defect 'Court Fee deficit Rs. 9360/-'.4. The appellants are - the widow of late Gulab Singh and two minor sons of aged 13 and 10 years. This lady and two minors are not in a position to pay the court fees. As per Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ...
Jagmal Ram Vs. Assistant Engineer, I.G.N.P. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj304; RLW2004(1)Raj595; 2003(3)WLC301; 2003(2)WLN538
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 27-8-98 passed by the first Appellate Court rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 2-9-97 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had been served with a show cause notice dated 7-3-97 that on 25-1-97 he was found irrigating his field surreptitiously by fitting the pipe in the canal and thereby committed the theft and, thus, why he should not be proceeded in accordance with law. Petitioner filed a suit restraining the respondents to pass any order against him under the law and in the said suit, the application for temporary injunction was filed, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 2-9-97, against which he preferred a miscellaneous appeal which was dismissed on 27-8-9...
Jal Grahan Vikas Committee Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj742; 2002(4)WLN522
Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. The petition has been filed by one of the committee constituted by the Gram Sabha against Gram Panchayat for not accepting the recommendations made by it and seeking a mandamus for giving effect to the recommendation made by it.3. The petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge that the committee is not a registered society and therefore, the petition by committee is not maintainable.4. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that petition was not filed as a society, but it was a statutory committee constituted under the Panchayat Raj Act and therefore, it has statutory existence and it can sue and can be sued in its name.5. We are unable to sustain the plea. The juristic personality is vested in the Gram Panchayat and not every limb or manifestation through which Gram Panchayat discharges its functions as a local authority or a local self govt. The constitution of committee by any local authority or corporate cell...
Sadiq Mohammed Vs. Parvati Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj624
Panwar, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') by the defendant-tenant feeling aggrieved by order dated 23.03.2002 of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the trial Court has passed order under Section 7 of the Act fixing provisional rent.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal, are that: the defendant-appellant is plaintiff-respondent in shop No. 2 since 1972. The plaintiff-respondent brought up suit under Section 6 of the Act for fixing standard rent. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff also moved in application under Section 7 of the Act for fixing provisional rent. Both the parties filed affidavits in support of their respective contentions and, on the basis of material on record, the trial Court vide order impugned dated 23.03.2002 fixed provisional rent at the rate...
Smt. Shakuntala Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1401; 2002(4)WLC41; 2002(5)WLN539
Chauhan, J. 1. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 17.2.2001, by which the learned trial Court has vacated the temporary injunction passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff earlier. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that vide letters dated 14.8.97 and 29.12.98, a contract for parking of the vehicles in front of Railway Station, Abu Road, was granted in favour of the petitioner for a period of two years on a fixed licence fee of Rs. 17,084/- to be paid in twenty equal installments. It appears that the complete area, which was agreed upon by the contract, could not be handed over to the petitioner-plaintiff and some lesser area was given for the reason that regarding a part of it, there had been some litigation. Neither he paid the licence fee as per the agreement after expiry of some time, nor paid 10% penalty on the monthly licence fee, nor he complied with the other terms. The non-petitioner revoked the licence, as per the terms an...
Vishwajyoti theatre and anr. Vs. Prescribed Authority and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1373; 2002(4)WLN502
Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in exhibiting films in Theatre known as Vishwajyoti Theatre. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 Virendra Kumar stopped coming to the establishment on and from 29.1.1987 without giving notice or information. The petitioner's claim is that respondent No. 2 left the services of the petitioner at his own accord. His explanation was called by sending letter at his registered address but the same was returned with the endorsement that addressee is not found. An enquiry was contemplated to be held against the respondent No. 2. In the meanwhile, petitioner raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer alleging that his services have been terminated w.e.f. 29.1.1987. In other dispute redressal forum, the case of the petitioner was also examined.2. The petitioner alleges that without exhausting the other remedy initiated byhim, the respondent No. 2 switched on for redressal of his grievance to the remedyunder Rajasthan Shops and Comm...
Modern Threads (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)77; [2002]258ITR511(Raj)
By the CourtOn an application under section 256(1). of the Income Tax Act. 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on a proper interpretation of provisions of section 37(2A) read with Explanation 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing Rs. 19,918 being cost of gift articles by treating the same as entertainment expenses.'2. The relevant assessment year is 1984-85. During the course of assessment. Assessing officer noticed that assessee has incurred expenses on distribution of suit lengths, assessing officer has invoked the provisions of section 37(2A) read with Explanation 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and disallowed Rs. 19,918 on the ground that the distribution of suit lengths to various person is nothing but entertainment expenses. In appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the view taken by assessing officer. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has also confirmed th...
Satish Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR283]; (2002)IIILLJ714Raj; RLW2003(2)Raj840; 2002(3)WLC656
Sharma, J. 1. Delay condoned. In the instant special appeal the appellant has assailed the order dated May 10, 2000 of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the appellant seeking reference of the dispute in regard to termination of his services was dismissed.2. We have reflected over the rival submissions and scanned the record.3. It appears that the appellant had worked with the respondent No. 2 from November 28, 1986 till July 30, 987 and the dispute was raised on November 10, 1998 before the Conciliation Officer. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated January 1, 2000 refused to refer the dispute on the ground that it was raised after a period of 11 years without any jurisdiction of long delay. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that asking the Government to refer the dispute after more than 13 years, the adjudication of which may take further long years, will only add to the miseries not only to the petitioner but to his family as well and in view of this o...
Mukesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj864; 2002(3)WLC603
Sharma, J.1. The accused-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.2.2002 passed by the Special Judge (Forged Note cases), Jaipur, by which the learned Special Judge has framed charges against the accused petitioner for offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 nd 323/149 IPC. 2. In nut-shell, the prosecution case is that on the report of complainant Subhash as regards alleged murder of his son Deepak, a case vide FIR No. 164/2000 was registered on 10.8.2000 at Police Station, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. Having completed investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against accused Gulab Singh, Keshar Singh, Lokesh, Pushpendra Pareek and Ramesh Chand for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 IPC, and further investigation was kept pending. These 5 accused are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 1/2001. 3. In the course of trial in Sessions Case No. 1/2001, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the present petitioner and the learned trial Court after having counsel for th...
Ota Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj910; 2002(3)WLC317
Kumar, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.8.97, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as Dy.Super-intendent, Jails, w.e.f. 1.3.85 after selection through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The appointment letter was issued on 14.2.85 and in pursuance thereof, the appellant joined service on 1.3.85. Since, this was a direct recruitment, the appellant was placed on probation for a period of two years under Rule-28 of the Rajasthan Jails Service Rules, 1959 (hereafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1959). Soon after joining, the appellant was sent for training for a foundational course. He completed the training in April/May, 1985.3. The initial period of probation of the appellant came to an end on 28th February, 1987. The respondent sought to extend the period of probation by six months under Rule 34-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »