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.
Laxman Ram Vs. Kishana Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj84
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The submissions made by the learned Counsel is that in the agreement there is stipulation about refund, of Rs. 32,000/- in the event of the defendant defaulting to perform the agreement and therefore, on the face of stipulation the decree for specific performance could not be passed.3. It was also contended that in para 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff had misquoted the agreement by alleging that there was a stipulation to the effect that in the event of default the plaintiff would be entitled to have the agreement enforced by the Court while there is no such stipulation of the agreement.4. I have considered the submission and have gone through the record.5. True it is, that in the agreement there is no such recital, that in the event of default by the defendant, the plaintiff would be entitled to have the agreement enforced through Court and there is stipulation of refund of Rs. 32,000/- however, in my view, in view of the...
Gurnam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1208
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in all these writ petitions is the Assessment orders issued under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Tax Act, 1985 (for short, '1985 Act'). Since common questions of fact land law are involved in these writ petitions, 1 proceed to decide the same analogously.2. For the convenience, the facts are taken from the writ petition No. 5462/1997, which depict that the petitioner has been carrying on the business or excavating the mines. The State Government granted mining lease to the petitioner for the sand stone in village Budhpura Tehsil and District Bundi under the Rajasthan Minor Concession Rules. The Legislature by Act No. 6of 1985 enacted 1985 Act for imposition of tax on land held or used for excavation of minerals in areas other than urban areas in the State of Rajasthan. The 1985 Act came into force w.e.f. August 1, 1985. As per 1985 Act every land holder has to be liable to pay tax and the provisions were made applicable to mineral bearing land. The v...
Cadila Health Care Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1899
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the complaint, criminal proceedings and the order of issuance of process passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences against any and/or all of the accused in criminal case No. 468/2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi. Petitioners have further prayed that the provisions of Section 34, 34(1) and 34(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short 'the Act of 1940') be declared to be unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners submitted that they do not press challenge to the vires of Section 34, 34(1) and 34(2) of the Act of 1940 and the said issue may be left open. We have recorded statement of the counsel for the petitioner and granted liberty to challenge the vires of the aforesaid provisions at appropriate stage. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the provisions o...
Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Highway Tyre Retread Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN181
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we find that no interference is called for in the matter at the instance of appellant.2. The respondent was sanctioned a loan as a small scale industry to the tune of Rs. 13.1 lacs and in its meeting held on 16.03.1991 the District Level Committee also sanctioned a central subsidy in a sum of Rs. 2,09,600/- under the Scheme of 1990. Against the sanctioned subsidy only Rs. 1.5 lac was disbursed by the appellant corporation and that was adjusted against the dues against the respondent-petitioner.3. The respondent-petitioner is engaged in the business of re-treading of tyres and the same was not in dispute.4. On 26.06.1991 the State Level Screening Committee held that the assessee's unit was not engaged in the manufacturing process and therefore was not eligible for Central Cash Subsidy and informed the Rajasthan Financial Corporation to recover the amount if already paid to the petitioner. In pursuance of said order, the app...
Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN257
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material made available to me during arguments.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the injured are brothers and report has been lodged after a delay of around one month. He further submits that there is no medical opinion to the effect that the grievous injury sustained by the applicant is dangerous to life. Learned PP does not controvert.3. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case I deem it just and proper to release the accused applicant on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.4. It is therefore, ordered that the accused applicant Mahendra Singh S/o Ganpat Singh in FIR No. 353/06, Police Station Bansoor, Distt. Alwar shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to ...
Pratap Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1065
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 10.12.1999 whereby penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him and the order dated 22.8.2000 whereby his appeal against that order was rejected and further the order dated 5.2.2002 whereby his review petition was rejected.2. The order of penalty dated 10.12.1999 is a detailed order. According to this order, the respondents vide notification dated 11.8.1997 invited applications for appointment on the post of constable/constable driver and received 1953 and 55 applications for such appointment. Similarly the respondents received 2008 applications upto 24.11.1997 for appointment for the year 1978- 79. Each of the applications enclosed with postal order of Rs. 25/- In the same manner, 6652 applications were received during the year 1998- 99 upto 30.11.1998 with which also postal orders each of Rs. 25/- was received. While the demand drafts of Rs. 1,66,300/-...
Manoj Kumar Garg Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN211
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that they are the purchasers of 3 bighas and 4 biswas of land together falling in Khasra No. 216 from Bhanwar Lal, Kalu Ram, Buxa Ram and Chena Ram sons of Shri Shambhu Ram vide registered sale deed dated 17.01.1995. Petitioners have filed the copy of the registered sale deed as Annexure-I Petitioners' claim is that pursuant to sale of the land in their favour, the same came to be mutated in the revenue record in the name of the petitioners. The copy of revenue record has been produced as Annexure-2.2. Petitioners claim that in the month of April, 2001, they came to know that the proceedings for acquiring the land in question has been undertaken at the instance of the U.I.T. Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'). Petitioners state that they made inquiries and collected relevant documents and found that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter r...
Director, State Insurance and P.F. Deptt. Vs. Ashok Kumar Vyas and anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN379
Mohammed Rafiq, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition against the award dated 28.02.2001 passed by the learned labour Court Jodhpur whereby it is answered the reference made to it by appropriate government vide Notification dated 11th July, 2005. The reference was made on the question whether removal of the respondent-workman by the petitioners from their services w.e.f. 6th October, 1986 was legal and valid and if not what relief was he entitled to.2. Claim set up by the workman before the Labour Court was that he was appointed with the office of the petitioners on daily wages basis as L.D.C. on 02.08.1985. The petitioner issued appointment order to him on 16.08.1985 and thereafter extended his service by order dated 14.05.1986 for a period of three months. Even after expiry of three months, the respondent continued to work with the petitioners till 06.10.1986 on which date he was removed. The petitioners did not comply the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dis...
Champa (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN331
Mohammed Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to provide national promotion to her late husband who was working with them on the post of Inspector (Land Records), Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar from the date junior persons to him were allowed promotions against the vacancies of the year in which he was entitled to promotion with all consequential benefits.2. Factual matrix of the case is the the late husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dt. 25.07.1969. He challenged the aforesaid order before this Court is S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 135/88. The said writ petition was originally filed against the order of suspension, During the pendency of the writ petition however late husband of the petitioner Shri Sohan Raj Surana was dismissed from service therefore the petition was allowed to be amended, Soon thereafter, the original petitioner unfortunately expired. This Court while deciding the wr...
Chail Singh Vs. Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN300
Mohammed Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the award dt. 04.03.2003 passed by the learned Labour Court thereby answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government in the terms that the petitioner workman failed to prove that he was removed from service of the respondent management on 01.12.1990 or that he worked with them upto 30.11.1991. The learned Labour Court in the circumstances therefore declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner before the learned Labour Court was that the appropriate government while making reference to the Labour Court required it to determine and answer as to whether removal of the petitioner from the service of the respondents on 01.12.90 was legal and valid and if not what relief was he entitled to. However the petitioner submitted his statement of claim wherein he asserted that he was appointed by the respondent No. 2 on 16.07.84 and was working continuously for six years....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »