Rajasthan Court May 2003 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.
Taruna Gangwal (Smt.) Vs. Radhey Shyam Meratwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj127; 2003(3)WLC766
Harbans Lal, J.1. This Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (in short 'the Act') has been preferred by defendant (appellant herein) against the order dated 7.4.1999 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 6 Jaipur City, Jaipur, Striking out her defence against eviction under Section 13 (5) of the Act.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that plaintiff instituted a civil suit in the court below against defendant for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, personal bonafide necessity, nuisance and sub letting with the averment that the property described in para No. 1 of the plaint was let-out to her w.e.f. 1.5.1990 on a monthly rent of Rs. 3200/- per month which was enhanced to Rs. 3680/- per month from 1.5.1993. She failed to make payment of rent w.e.f. 1.11.1994 to 30.4.1995. In her written statement she admitted the tenancy. But pleaded that the rent was deposited th...
Yamuna Shanker Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj665
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Both the aforementioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them identical questions of law and facts are involved,S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2006/20032. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 2.5.2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 25.4.2003 (Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur by which the services of the petitioner were not extended after 31.3.2002 and the impugned show cause notice dated 31.1.2003 (Annex.6) issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur be quashed and a set aside and the respondents be directed to absorb the petitioner on the regular vacant post of Assistant Professor.3. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The pe...
Trilok Chand Saini Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj369; 2003(4)WLC464
Keshote, J.1. The matter is placed on the board on the application of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed for condonation of delay of 197 days. On the notice to the respondents of this application, Shri S.C. Purohit, Dy. Government Advocate, put appearance on their behalf and strongly opposed the application. He filed reply to the application also dt. 8.5.2003 after completion of the arguments.2. At the out set, it is not gainsay to state and of which judicial notice can also be taken that almost all the appeals filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan are presented after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. When it is the position of the State of Rajasthan, we fail to see how far it is justified on its part to oppose the application filed by a litigant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act, 1963') for condonation of delay made in filing of the appeal. It is understandable and this opposition of the State of Rajasthan could ha...
Laxman Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj649
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 5.6.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction,(i) the merit list dated 24.5.2002 (Annex.9) prepared by the respondent No. 4 Additional Development Officer (Elementary Education), Panchayal Samiti, Ahore (Jalore) for appointment of Para Physical Teachers in Government Upper Primary School, Rundmal-ki-dhani, Gram Panchayat Valdara in which the name of the respondent No. 7 Dilip Singh was shown at Serial No. 1 while the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 2, be quashed and set aside;(ii) the impugned order dated 2.7.2002 (Annex.13A) passed by the respondent No. 5 District Collector, Jalore by which the revision of the petitioner was dismissed holding inter-alia that the petitioner was not having requisite qualification for appointment as Para Physical Teacher as the PC Diploma in Physical Education of one...
Khet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)14; RLW2004(1)Raj673; 2003(4)WLC394
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873, has been filed against the order dated 2.4.2003 passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), Balotra in Sessions Case No. 22/2002, by which the learned court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused by the order impugned.3. The fact as circumstances giving rise to this case, in succinct, are that on 28.4.2002, at about 3:30 a.m., on Binjraj Singh S/o Mangal Singh telephonically informed the police that at about 11:45 p.m. accused Pratap Singh and five-six other persons gave beatings to injured Khet Singh by Lathis and axe; he was lying unconscious and blood was oozing out from the injuries. On this telephonic information, the investigation ensued and on completion thereof, the police filed challan against...
Shyam Lal and anr. Vs. Shushil Ruiaya and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj837; 2003(4)WLC56
Harbans Lal, J.1. This civil first appeal Under Section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and order dated 13.5.2003 of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sikar, allowing the application of the defendants-respondent No. 1 and 6 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and dismissing the suit of, the plaintiff.2. The brief facts of the case are that a suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants stating therein that Shri Krishna Go Shala is a registered society under the provisions of the Rajasthan Registration of Societies. Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'). The trustees had no power to make new members without calling an annual general meeting. No annual general meeting was convened since 1982 which was necessary under the Constitution and the Rules of the Society. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were not legally appointed trustees. On 8.10.2001, an audit report was submitted by respondent No. 10. But he then subm...
Gehna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)446; [2004]267ITR782(Raj)
ASHOK PARIHAR, J. 1. Looking to the short controversy involved in the present matter, the writ petition is disposed of without issuing notices to the respondents.2. For an escaped assessment under Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, notice under Section 148, dt, 17th June, 2002, has been issued to the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1999-2000, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.3. The impugned notice has been challenged mainly on the ground that no reason, whatsoever, has been given by the assessing authority in the impugned notice. It has further been submitted that in spite of representation been made and reminders issued, the assessing authority has not supplied any reason, which is mandatory in nature. The Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO and Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19, has observed that where notice under Section 148 of the IT Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file the return and if he so desires, to seek reas...
Shri Girraj Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)367; [2005]272ITR466(Raj)
1. The following questions are raised in this appeal stated to be questions of law, which does arise out of the impugned order of Tribunal:'Whether the Tribunal was justified in having restored an addition of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of undisclosed stocks etc. on a purely ad hoc basis without assigning any rhyme, reason or basis for the same ?''Whether the Tribunal was justified in having interfered with the order of CIT(A) dt. 25th July, 2002, without pointing out any material error whatsoever?''Whether the order dt. 29th Jan., 2003, of the Tribunal suffers from arbitratiness inasmuch as it has restored any addition of Rs. 1 lakh without showing at all as to how that figure has been worked out ?''Whether the order dt. 29th Jan., 2003, of the Tribunal suffers from perversity ?'2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.3. The basic issue in these questions is whether the addition of Rs. 1 lakh can be sustained on account of excess stock found during search.4. During search 12 tanks of r...
Manager, Packplast Industries Vs. Siya Ram Patidar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj153; 2003(4)WLC105
Misra, J.1. The petitioner-M/s Packplast Industries, has filed both these writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Kota which has refused to set aside the Ex-parte award passed in favour of the petitioner determining the question that the petitioner-industry was legally bound to pay Rs. 21,000/- by way of over-time allowance to the workman-respondent No. 1 as he had discharged 12 hours of duty daily by way of over-time. The petitioner had duly been served with a show cause notice to appear before the Labour Court which had to adjudicate upon the dispute but the petitioner-industry failed to appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice which is admitted by the petitioner-industry. The Labour Court, therefore, passed an ex-parte award in favour of respondent- workman on 3.7.98. The petitioner-industry thereafter filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte award on 18.11.99 wherein it was stated that the notice although was served on the employee...
Harbhaj Ram Vs. the Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj919; 2003(3)WLC772
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 11.7.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 23.9.1995 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 Managing Director, Paschami Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jodhpur by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and the judgment and award dated 23.11.2000 (Annex. 11) passed by the respondent No. 1 Labour Court, Jodhpur by which the order Annex. 3 dated 23.9.1995 terminating the services of the petitioner was found valid and proper, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioner was working as Helper Gr.I at Milk Chilling Centre, Phalodi which is under the Paschami Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangh').The further case of the petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »