Rajasthan Court October 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.
Mohanlal Soni and anr. Vs. the Director, Directorate of Urban Land and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN329
Govind Mathur, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. and Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. AIR 2001 Rajasthan 288, while declaring Section 13(1)(b) and Section 15(b) of the Rajasthan Land & Building Tax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1964') ultravires to the Constitution of India, held as under:IV. In our view, when the tax under the Act of 1964 is upon the land or building; or, both, separately as units and when the property in question has already been subjected to tax the question of any further tax liability under the Act cannot arise merely on account of the transfer of such property. Under the scheme of things contemplated in the Act, in this regard, the change in ownership is wholly inconsequential inasmuch as the tax is not on the person owning the land or building; but, on the land or building or both separately as units. The provision authorising the levy of tax under the Act on the transferee of the property on acc...
Ram Prakash Agarwal Vs. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR351]; RLW2008(2)Raj1516
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to make payment of gratuity plus remaining salary to the tune of Rs. 1,75,550/-. Further, he has prayed for interest on due amount at the rate of 24% per annum w.e.f. 30.4.1993 as well as Rs. 50,000/- for harassment suffered by him due to non-payment of his dues? According to the facts of the case mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner was employed with the respondent-Bank on 1.12.1959 and he continued in service and ultimately after rendering services of 33 years and four months, he was superannuated on 31.3.1993. According to the petitioner before retirement, he submitted requisite form demanding gratuity under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Gratuity Rules. However, no payment of gratuity was made to the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner's salary was Rs. 2190/- plus dearness allowance at the time of his retirement, therefore, as per...
Anant Shri Sukhramji Trust Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN421
Govind Mathur, J.1. This petition for writ is preferred to assail validity of the resolution dt. 06.03.2000 undertaken by Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara to allot a piece of land measuring 4400 square yards at the reserved rate of Rs. 500/- per square yard to Shri Shwetambar Sthanakwasi Pragya Jain Yuva Mandal, Bhilwara. Challenge is also given by the petitioner to the order dt. 07.09.2000 passed by the State Government to charge 10% of the reserved rate from the petitioner while making allotment of land aforesaid.2. The orders impugned are challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including violation of provisions of Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1974'), the competence of the petitioner for getting allotment of land under the Rules of 1974 and also the preference required to be given to the petitioner while making allotment of land in question.3. A detailed reply, rejo...
Dhanna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN298
Govind Mathur, J.1. This petition for writ to question validity of the order dt. 16.06.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Nagaur certifying no objection in installation of a petrol outlet at village Bhawanda Tehsil Khinvsar District Nagaur and also to quash letter of intent issued in favour of respondent No. 6 Shri Ramniwas Bhambhi for installation of petroleum out letat village Bhawanda.2. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited by its advertisement Anx.1, published in Dainik Bhaskardt. 23.05.2005, invited applications to instal petrol pump at village Manakpur, thus, the installation of petrol pump at Bhawanda in place of Manakpur is illegal. It is also contended that the respondent No. 6 failed to provide any details with regard to availability of the land to instal outlet, therefore, asper policy of the respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation the issuance of the letter of intent in favour of the respondent No. 6 is illegal.3. In repl...
Nishar Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN322
Govind Mathur, J.1. This petition for writ is directed to challenge validity, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dt. 15.12.2005passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan quashing the permit sanctioned by Regional Transport Authority, Chittorgarh (here in after referred to as 'the RTA') for Begun-Rawatbhata route in favour of the petitioner by an order dt. 19.09.2003.2. The facts leading to present controversy and necessary to be noticed for adjudication of instant petition for writ are as follows:3. The Government of Rajasthan and the Government of Madhya Pradesh entered into a reciprocal transport agreement on 18.07.2001 with regard to operations of stage carriage on inter-State routes between Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. The agreement incorporated non-notified routes in Annex.-A and notified routes in Annex.-B. It was also agreed that the stage carriage permit of both the States countersigned prior to agreement dt. 18.07.2001shall be valid till their va...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajastan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1375
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner, holding the post of senior teacher at Government Secondary School, Dharamdhari (Pali), seeks the reliefs in the nature of (i) annulment of department enquiry on the ground of delay of about 11 years in initiation of proceedings from the date of alleged incident and further for the respondents having failed to conclude the proceedings for 10 years; (ii) restraining the respondents from passing any adverse order for the petitioner having remained in custody for more than 48 hours after his conviction was affirmed by the appellate court; and (iii) for directions to the respondents to consider his representation sympathetically. 2. The relevant facts leading to this petition as noticeable from the averments taken and material placed on record by the petitioner could be summarized thus: The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 323,324,326 & 307 IPC in an FIR lodged on 26.06.1986; after investigation challan wa...
Bhanwar Lal Bunker and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj992; 2009(3)SLJ448(Raj)
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioners, 17 in number, holding the posts of teacher with qualification of School Training Certificate ('STC' for short), and posted at different Upper Primary Schools, having been transferred to different Primary Schools on the vacant posts under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan ('SSA' for short) by the order dated 25.09.2007 (Annex.3) issued by the respondent No. 3 District Education Officer (Elementary Education) and Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur in pursuance of an order dated 30.07.2007 (Annex.4) issued by the State Government seek to question the said orders dated 25.09.2007 and 30.07.2007 by way of this joint petition for writ. 2. While considering the matter for motion-admission, this Court expressed its reservations on competence of such petition jointly on behalf of 17 petitioners where the transfer/posting order in relation to each of the petitioner affords a separate and distinct cause of action; and the petitioners cannot b...
Seema Devi Tomar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1764
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.7.2007 passed by 'the Deputy Secretary (Adm.-I), Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur by which he was declared disqualified to continue as Member of Panchayat Samiti Nadbai in view of the bar contained in Section 19(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act.2. Factual matrix of the case is that petitioner was elected as Member Panchayat Samiti Nadbai on 8.2.2005. One Atar Singh filed a complaint against him that she was not eligible to contest the election because on that date she had a third child born to her after the cut-off date i.e. 27.11.1995 and violated Section 19(1) of the said Act because the above child was born sometime in the year 2000. Petitioner submitted a false affidavit before the returning officer declaring otherwise. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Development Officer Panchayat Samiti Nadbai who found the allegations against the petit...
Taju Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1474
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Since both these appeals challenge the judgment dated 7.8.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Laxmangarh, District Alwar, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.2. The discovery of the dead body of Sarfudeen, the alleged recovery of few articles from the appellants, their conviction for offence under Section 302/34 and 120-B of Indian penal Code (for short, 'IPC') forms the background of this case.For the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and have been imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 120-B IPC, they have been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and have been imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment.3. According to the prosecution, on 7.5.2002 at 10:30 AM, the Circle Officer, Laxmangarh gave a te...
Gavra Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN274
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the order dt. 18.10.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer accepting a revision petition preferred by respondent Shri Ghanshyam giving challenge to validity, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner in Revenue Appeal No. 37/2000 as affirmed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner by order dt.19.09.2001.2. In brief, facts of the case are that the Tehsildar made mutation in favour of respondent Shri Ghanshyam S/o Shri Nathmal on basis of a Will said to be executed by his father Shri Nathmal. The present petitioners being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner and that came to be accepted by the order dt. 16.05.2001with a finding that the Tehsildar (Revenue), Bikaner erred while enteringmutation in favour of respondent Shri Ghanshyam without hearing other legal representatives of Shri Nat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »