Rajasthan Court January 2007 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.
Manohar Kanwar (Smt.) and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1579
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of order Annex. I dated 10.7.1990 terminating the services of Govt. employee Narain Singh, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2; to release family pension, death-cum- gratuity benefits and all the service benefits of Narain Singh who said to have been disappeared while in service and nothing has been heard of him for more than seven years and to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner No. 2 assuming that his father Narain Singh Govt. servant died while in service.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, Narain Singh Panwar was an employee of the State Govt. serving on the post of Class IV employee as Peon in the Office of Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi, district Jodhpur. It is averr...
Shivji Lal and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN575
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Challenge in this case is the judgment dt. 06.11.1996 passed by the learned Board of Revenue on a reference of Additional Collector, Tonk under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the order dt. 23.12.1997 by which the Board rejected review petition. The petitioners are resident of village Kiraval, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk. They have asserted that the agricultural land comprising Khasras Nos. 1182/5.4, 1393/1.10, 1396/4.17, 1401/1.0, 1410/31.8, 1303/5.5 and 1385/7.8 measuring total area 23 bighas and 3 bishwa situated in village Kiraval Tehsil Malpura, has been in their cultivatory possession since the time of their ancestors. Settlement of village Kiraval was made in Samvat 2008 (year 1951). Settlement office recorded such land as 'Talabi' in the revenue record. Copy of the Khasra settlement has been placed on record. It is submitted that the lands of Khasras No. 1303, 1385, 1392, 1397, 1401 and 1410 are the lands of the then State of Jaipur...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Techno Hind Marble and Granite Pvt. Ltd. and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN39
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner State of Rajasthan has come up in writ petition against the order dt. 30.03.1993 passed by Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act was allowed. The respondent No. 2 had challenged the order dt. 10.07.1990 passed by Additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur whereby the said Additional Collector upheld the objection of Sub-Registrar when he impounded the lease deed executed by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Corporation ('RIICO' for short) presented before him for registration on 13.03.1990 and referred the matter to Additional Collector (Stamps). The Additional Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 47-A of the Act directed for inclusion of the amount of the development charges released by RIICO from the previous owner as part of the sale price and on that basis assessed the value of the conveyanced ...
Parsa Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR996]; RLW2007(2)Raj1696
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Aggrieved by the order Annex.3 dated 10.3.2004 passed by Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, holding therein that the dispute was discontinued from the services by the Management during the year 1986 and the dispute has been raised belatedly after a gap of 16 years without any valid reasons for the delay, hence the dispute has, prima facie, no merit, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent bank on 19.8.1981 on daily/wages basis as peon and continued to serve the respondent bank i.e. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for short 'SBBJ' hereinafter) till 25.5.1986 when his services were terminated. The petitioner requested the Appropriate Govt. of India to make a reference to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal for illegally terminating his services. The respondent...
Oma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN222
Krishan Kumar Acharya, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant(s) and learned Public Prosecutor on application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant(s) states that there is only single injury and the said injury has not been attributed to the present appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the statement of eye witnesses as well as post mortem report. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that the appellants has been convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC. He further states that accused appellant(s) was on bail during the course of trial and did not misuse the bail. In last, he prays that accused-appellant(s) has arguable case and hearing of the appeal will take time,, therefore, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant(s) may be suspended during the pendencey of the appeal.3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application seeking suspension of sentence and stated that six accused persons ...
Dev Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN309
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents that the petitioner voluntarily retired from police service w.e.f. 30.11.2000 instead of w.e.f. 10.09.2004 vide Annex. 9.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the Department of Police with the non-petitioners w.e.f. 23.08.1975. After completing the service of more than 20 years of service, he filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi under Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.11.2000. Till 30.11.2000, the respondents neither accepted the application Annex. 1 filed by the petitioner nor rejected and intimated the rejection to the petitioner. However, the petitioner again filed an application vide Annex. R-9 on 12.01.2001 for volun...
Thawariya Vs. Firm Rajesh Kumar Heera Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj598
Harbans Lal, J.1. This civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.1989 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas (Alwar) whereby the appeal No. 25/1987 has been dismissed up-holding the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1987 of the learned Civil Judge, Kishangarhbas in Civil Original Suit No. 73/1985 vide which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a civil original suit in the aforesaid court on 12.1.1981 inter-alia pleading that the plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership act, 1932 (in short 'the Act') and it has three partners namely Hazari Lal, Babu Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi. It carries on business of commission agent in Khairthal town. The defendant appellant took a loan of Rs. 4.500/- from the plaintiff-firm on 20.2.1978, but neither repaid t...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. P.G. Foils Limited and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1450; (2008)11VST942(Raj)
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These revision petitions preferred by the Revenue involve same questions of law and, therefore, all these revision petitions are heard together and are being decided by this common order.3. These revisions petitions were taken up for hearing and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court, with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, formulated following questions of law by order dated 13.10.2006:1. Whether Rajasthan Tax Board was right in holding that 'aluminium foils' are covered within expression 'non-ferrous sheers' used in the Notification dated 31.12.1975 issued by the State Govt., under Section 8 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and therefore, taxable at concessional rate of 1% during the period in question ?2. Whether the 'aluminium foil' is a commodity different from 'aluminium sheets' in commercial and common parlance or whether 'aluminium foil' is also known in common parlance as a t...
National Construction Co. Vs. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN130
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In this application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short '1996 Act') the applicant company seeks to appoint independent arbitral Tribunal for resolving the disputes between the applicant and respondent.2. As per the facts stated in the application the applicant entered into an agreement with the respondent to perform excavation of mines on the assigned place for which mining rights were existing with the respondent. It is pleaded that due to the non-cooperation of the respondent the applicant was restrained from carrying out its work and it had to file a civil suit. Looking to the time gap the applicant had given a request letter on 02.06.2005 to respondent to appoint a Committee Arbitrator but the respondent declined the request vide letter dt. 28.06.2005. The respondent in the reply raised preliminary objections in regard to maintainability of the application. It is averred in the reply that since there was no arbitration agree...
East India Hotels Ltd. (the) and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Raj95; RLW2007(2)Raj1164
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the lessee, alleging inter alia that by lease deed dt. 17.12.1992 one Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P) Ltd., hereafter referred to as the lessor, the petitioner took on lease the land mentioned in para-6 of the rent deed for a term of 72 years. The rent stipulated to be paid during the lease period has been reproduced in para-6 of the writ petition. The lease was obtained for the purpose of constructing, and operating hotel/motels. The construction was to be in conformity with the rules and regulations, and other byelaws. The cost of the construction was to be incurred by the petitioner. Then, in Clause 15 of the lease deed, copy whereof has been produced vide Annexure-1, it was stipulated that lessee shall keep deposited with the lessor an advance lease deposit of Rs. 2.5 Crores, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, which include the mode of the receipt by the lessor. The amount was to carry simple interest @ 9% per annum,...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »