Rajasthan Court December 2006 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.
Municipal Board and ors. Vs. Jagdish
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN394
Rajesh Balia, J.1. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents inspite of service despite waiting for some time. In the circumstances, we have heard the appeal as directed earlier while issuing notice of the appeal.2. The respondent who is an employee of the appellant has made an application for transferring him from construction department to revenue department. In the written application, accusations were made against the Municipal Administration about the misuse of public money, while alleging that the person junior to him has been placed in the revenue department. Against user of the aforesaid language, unbecoming of a subordinate employee, the respondent was suspended and was subjected to enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, which have been made applicable to the disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Municipal Council. A charge of making use of incompatible language with the status of subordinate employee was proved and the disciplinary authority im...
In Re: Vast Textiles Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: [2007]78SCL190(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Vast Textiles Limited (in short the Resulting Company) and Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Limited (in short the Demerged Company) have filed the present petitions under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as '1956 Act') for sanctioning the Scheme of Arrangement between the resulting company and demerged company so as to be binding upon all the shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors from the appointed date 16-10-2005 and for passing appropriate orders regarding vesting of assets liabilities between the companies in accordance with the scheme of arrangement.2. The Resulting Company was duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 as Vast Textiles Ltd. on 22-5-2001 vide certificate of incorporation No. 17-017036 of 2001-02. The company was incorporated with its registered office in State of Rajasthan.3. The position authorized issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the Resulting Company as on 15-10...
Jagdish Prasad Swami Vs. Ramji Lal Joshi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1970
R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The hyper-technical and the hyper- insensitive approach of the trial Court while dealing with an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short) is forcing a defence to run from pillar to post. What could be easily tackied at the level of the trial Court is being transported to this Court. Needlessly, this Court is being flooded day in day out with appeals against the rejection of application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. This tide needs to be reserved, if this Court is not to be overwhelmed by the rising dockets.2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 15.7.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shahpura, District Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code.3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/- against the appellant. Vide ord...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ramavtar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN122
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by Union of India against the order of Civil Judge (S.D.) Sri Ganganagar dated 23.01.1995 passed in land acquisition proceedings under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act on reference made by the District Collector to the Civil Court.2. The only point involved in the appeal is with respect to interest and solatium and with respect of the date from which interest is payable to the claimants. Appellant-Union of India has not challenged the market value of the property determined by Civil Court nor they raised dispute with respect to any individual person's right to get compensation. It will be worthwhile to mention here that so far as the land cost is concerned, the Civil Court upheld the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer and has not enhanced the compensation.3. The appeal has been preferred by Union of India by impleading 100 lands owners whose lands have been acquired under the land acquisition proceedings under the...
Kusum Lata (Smt.) Vs. Bhanwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN248
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the divorce decree dated 24.5.2005 passed by the Court of District Judge, Pali in Civil Misc. Case No. 12/2004 filed by the respondent, husband of the appellant.3. The unfortunate facts of the case are that there were several rounds of litigations between the appellant and the respondent which started within a period of 2 years from time of their marriage, which took place on 20.02.1981. The allegations are of serious nature and that too in relation to the character of the appellant as the respondent husband in his first divorce petition No. 258/1988 (Old No. 124/1985) alleged that the appellant developed illicit relationship with some other person and gave birth to one child. That allegation was found to be wrong by the Court in the decision on the respondent's divorce petition dt. 12.06.1989. The appellant levelled serious allegations against the character of her father-in-law and alleged that he trie...
Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. Cestat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2009[15]STR353; [2009]23STT124
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. These 8 writ petitions have come in the light of following facts:In respect of the petitioner which is common in all 12 appeals preferred before the Tribunal, while 8 appeals, to which these writ petitions relate, vide order dated 10-4-2006, the petitioner was required to deposit a consolidated amount of Rs. 25 lacs within a period of 8 weeks as pre-deposit for hearing the appeals on merit and deposit of balance amount was waived but another Bench of the Tribunal by another order dated 12-4-2006 suspended the pre-deposit in its entirety and allowed the appeal on merit. It is not in dispute that subject matter of all the 12 appeals are identical. In these circumstances, apparently, there is no reason that the petitioner be first subjected to two such varied orders on the fortuitous circumstances to subject him to honours conditions for entering on same appeals to hear on merit.2. Apparently, the two such divergent views coming at a distance of mere two days by sa...
Padmawati and anr. (Smt.) Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN68
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dt. 20.11.2006 passed in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 391/2006 by which the learned Single Judge, while admitting the first appeal, refused to grant interim order of stay in favour of the appellants Smt. Padmawati and Rajendra Kumar after taking into consideration the finding recorded by the trial Court that the defendants appellants Smt. Padmawati and Rajendra Kumar are not using the suit premise for conducting any business. It has also been recorded by the trial Court that the appellant Smt. Padmawati is aged about 68 years and the tenant, who was inducted into the suit premise, was her husband who had expired. After his death, his four sons are having separate business and are well settled and, therefore, the suit for eviction was decreed in favour of the respondent-landlord on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The specific case of the landlord-respondent was tha...
Sajjan Kumar Vs. Smt. Ritu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN174
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents.2. After death of Smt. Bharti Devi Choudhary on 15th May 2000 a petition for getting Succession Certificate has been filed by the appellant and respondents jointly before the District Judge, Bhilwara. The applicantappellant is husband of deceased Smt. Bharti Devi Choudhary whereas respondents who also were applicants before the Court below are the daughters of deceased Smt. Bharti Devi Choudhary. The trial Court after evidence held that appellant and respondents, all the applicant are legal heirs of deceased Smt. Bharti Devi Choudhary and, therefore, entitled to have Succession Certificate for the property mentioned in para No. 2 of the application for grant of succession certificate. The trial Court, therefore, directed to issue Succession Certificate in the name of all the applicants and respondents as each has 1/3rd share in the shares of bonds, interest, and dividends over the amount of the ...
Yusuf Khan Vs. Municipal Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN262
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.09.2006.3. The land in question belongs to the petitioner appellant. By order dated 25.08.2003, 453.75 (454 sq. meters) of the land was converted for nonagricultural use. This was done after securing the land from the petitioner as Khatedar of the land and was allotted by the impugned order Annexure-4 where by petitioner has set up a Restaurant for which he has moved an application for permission before the competent authority in Form 'A'.4. Pending application for grant of license by Annexure-6, the petitioner was required to close the Restaurant within 24 hours failing which the petitioner was cautioned that the Restaurant would be removed, if that is not voluntarily closed. This led to filing of the writ petition for quashing of the order Annexure-6 and restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the ...
Rohitash Kumar and ors. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1210
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is the order dated May 26, 2003 of learned Single Judge whereby writ petitions filed by the ks were dismissed and it was held that the appellants were not entitled to claim party with hat of the employees of the Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Khetri Copper Complex (Respondents No. 1 and 2).2. It is averred in the writ petitions by the appellants that the Hindustan Copper Limited (respondent No. 1 ) is a company registered under the Companies Act and solely owned by the Government of India and Khetri Copper Complex (respondent No. 2) is unit of respondent No. 1. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Copper Kalyan Trust (Respondent No. 3) was created by the respondent No. 1 for the benefit generally of the employees of respondent No. 1 including other persons residing at Khetri Nagar in connection with their business and matters ancillary thereto and make available to them at cheap and reasonable prices...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »