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.
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Nabard) Vs. Ram N ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj675
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This special appeal has been registered on remand from the Supreme Court. The appellant had filed SLP (Civil) No. 1410/2003 giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 8553/2003 challenging the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 6.9.2002 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4808/1994. Leave was granted on 31.10.2003 but when the matter came up for hearing on 4.10.2005 the Supreme Court passed the following order:It is brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the respondents that a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench is available and a specific stand in that regard has been taken by respondent No. 1. Since factual adjudication, more particularly of the question as to whether respondent No. 1 actually worked after 31.7.1985 or had availed leave preparatory to retirement would require detailed examination, we think it would be appropriate if the appeal filed in this Court which has been registered after grant of leave as a civil appeal be tran...
Aerens Goldsouk International Ltd. Co. Vs. Samit Kavadia and 5 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR545(Raj); RLW2007(4)Raj3283
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) for referring the matter to Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents.2. As per the facts stated in the petition, the petitioner company having its registered office at Mumbai and Branch office at Jaipur engaged in the real Estate Business. The respondents 1 and 2 represented in the petitioner company that they are absolute and exclusive owner/lessee khatedar and in actual physical possession of 1.50, 5.16 and 0.81 Hectares of land situated in village Nangal Susavatan, Amer Tehsil, Jaipur on Jaipur Delhi National Highway No. 8. Out of this land about 7.33 Hectares land has been converted and approved as lease hold land for 99 years for use as Tourism related activities like Hotels, Motels, Resorts, Restaurant etc. By a Memorandum of understanding executed on April 3, 2004 it was agreed between the petiti...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Standard Agriculture Services
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1958
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These three revision petitions have been preferred by the Revenue against the same party and, therefore, all three revision petitions are heard together and are being decided by this common order.FOR THE YEAR 1989-1990:3. Facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is a registered dealer under the provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994') and according to the revenue, the respondent is engaged in the trade of sale and purchase of the tractor. The respondent assessee submitted quarterly returns for the year 1989-1990. Total four returns were submitted, two on 4.10.1989 and two on 12.4.1990. The returns were for the period 1.4.1989 to 30.6.1989, 1.7.1989 to 30.9.1989, 1.10.1989 to 31.12.1989 and 1.1.1990 to 12.4.1990. In these returns, sale of tractors were not shown by the dealer. On 19.7.1991, survey was conducted at the assessee's premises and at that time, Mr. Pradeep Narain Mathur, p...
A. Mukherjee Company and ors. Vs. Coventry Metals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1877
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The contest between the landlord, the appellant before us and the tenant, the respondent before us, over the fixation of the provisional rent, has brought the parties before this court. Vide Order dated 18.7.2003, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, the learned Judge has fixed the provisional rent of the building at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per month-- a provisional rent which is too little according to the appellant.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1 was a partnership firm which owned a 'Pital Factory' (a brass factory) situated on the Jhotwara Road in Jaipur. The said firm manufactured semis of Non-ferrous metals. Subsequently, the said firm was converted into private limited company by the name of Coventry Metals (Rajasthan) P. Ltd. In this Company the ex- partners of Appellant No. 1 had also become Directors and share holders of the defendant respondent Company. Therefore, the Appellants had let out the 'Pital Factor...
Manmeet Singh Meena and Akash Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3294
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This joint writ petitioner has been preferred by the students-petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is LL.B. IIIrd Year student and petitioner No. 2 is LL.B. IInd Year student. At the initial stage the impression was given by the petitioners that University is not allowing the petitioner No. 1 to appear in the LL.B. IIIrd Year examinations and petitioner No. 2 in LL.B. IInd Year examinations, therefore, looking to the facts that the examinations are scheduled to be held shortly, interim order was passed by this Court on 1.6.2006 and the University was directed to provisionally allow the petitioner No. 1 in the examination of LL.B. IIIrd year and petitioner No. 2 in LL.B. IInd year, but it was made clear that it will not create any equity in favour of the petitioners and shall remain subject to decision of this writ petition and the University was further directed not to declare the result of the petitioners.2. This Court vide interim order dated 20.10.2006, directed the lear...
Yakub Ali Gopal Singh and Party Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Raj)136
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dt. 16th Jan., 2003 [reported as Yakub Ali Gopal Singh & Party v. Dy. CIT and Anr. (2003) 180 CTR (Raj) 104--Ed.]. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as under:The controversy involved in this case is very narrow as the assessee has raised the grievance that the case has been reopened without giving the assessee the copy of reasons for reopening.Without contesting the case, Shri Bhandawat, learned Counsel appearing the Revenue, has made a submission that the Revenue will supply the reasons for reopening to the petitioner and limitation for filing the return shall apply from the date of supplying the reasons.In view of the statement made by Shri Bhandawat, nothing survives in this petition. The petition is, therefore, disposed of finally with the direction that the assessee may appear before the assessing authority, Bikaner by or on 23rd Jan., 2003 and ...
Om Prakash Vaswani Vs. Municipal Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj87
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 16th January, 2006, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh, rejecting appellant's application filed under Order 41, Rule 19, CPC.3. Brief facts of the case are that Regular First Appeal No. 87/04 was dismissed by the Court below in default vide order dated 19th April, 2005. Since that was the Regular First Appeal and the learned Advocate for the appellant was to argue the appeal and the appeal was dismissed due to his absence, learned Advocate of the appellant on the same day i.e. on 19th April, 2005 submitted application under Order 41, Rule 19, CPC for restoration and re-admission of the appeal. The said application was signed by the advocate only and was not supported by any affidavit. The First Appellate Court vide order dated 10th May, 2005 dismissed the application on the ground that the application has not been signed by the party nor affid...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Onkar Kanwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN453
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.2.2004.3. The respondent is heir of Ex.-Head Constable Kishore Singh, who was found time and again in an intoxicated condition. He was the member of service of Boarder Security Force.4. The facts which are not in dispute are that he was found in an intoxicated condition on 11.1.1995 while he was posted at Kolkata, for which he was awarded 28 days RI. He was again found in an intoxicated condition on 11.4.1995 while he was posted at Khajibagan, for which he was awarded seven days RI. Since the first punishment was imposed, he did not quit the habit of consuming heavy liquor.5. On 14th December, 2001, he was promoted from the post of Constable to Head Constable. After six months of his promotion he was again found in an intoxicated condition on 31.05.2002 and he was awarded punishment of severe reprimand while posted at Raninagar. Thereafter, conti...
Jagdish @ Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN224
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the case diary made available for perusal at the time of arguments.2. Counsel for accused-petitioners appearing in Bail Applications No. 6980/06, 6272/06 & 6118/06, submits that an FIR was lodged of the present incident on 14th June, 2006 by Matin Miya, son of the deceased, who is also one of the eye-witnesses and apart from it, Jagdish and Sitaram who were also eye-witnesses and as alleged were injured. All the three have specifically named Kailash, Ramesh and Khemraj who have caused blow upon the deceased and against present accused-petitioners there is a general allegation and apart from it, the incident as alleged took place in between 11-12 AM and before the said incident, the police also lodged FIR No. 138/06 on 14th June, 2006 itself wherein it has been alleged that the complainant along with other members have come forward to disturb the law and order ...
In Re: Aapka Bazar Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas712(Raj); RLW2007(4)Raj3288; [2007]76SCL128(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. By the instant application under sections 446, 454, 468, 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short '1956 Act'), the applicants have prayed as under:(i) The concerned police station may be ordered to deliver and hand over entire record and books of account and other belongings of the company ordered to be wound up which is in their possession or control to the Official Liquidator attached to this Hon'ble Court.(ii) The applicants may be permitted to inspect and compile the said record and books of account so as to enable them to prepare and file the statement of affair as per requirement of the Companies Act, 1956.(iii) The concerned police authorities may be directed not to arrest or detain the applicants. The applicants however are prepared to give any kind of guarantee or assurance to this Hon'ble Court as it may require that the applicants shall face the trial before the concerned court having jurisdiction over the matter till its finality.(iv) As the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »