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.
Lrs. of Himmat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN218
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 22.07.1995 (Annex.6) by which the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dt. 28.02.1995.3. Brief facts of the Bheru Singh are covered under the definition of the family given. case are that ceiling proceedings were initiated against one Bheru Singh (now deceased) under the provisions of Chapter IIIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956, which is known as Old Ceiling Law. In the said proceedings, the SDO, Udaipur by order dt. 04.11.1971 declared 180.36 standard acres of agricultural land in excess in the hands of said Shri Bheru Singh. Shri Bheru Singh preferred appeal against the order dt. 04.11.1971 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur which was partly allowed by order dt. 09.03.1972 and matter was remanded to the SDO with the direction to the SDO to give recognition to the transfe...
Shyam Diesel Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN380
Govind Mathur, J. 1. The petitioner, a partnership firm having a petrol pump at Jasnagar in District Nagaur, has preferred this petition for writ assailing validity of the order dt. 19.07.2007 passed by the Deputy Manager (Sales), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Jodhpur, suspending supply of all petroleum products till further orders. The suspension of supply was made by the respondent Corporation as per a report dt. 18.7.2007 given by Shri Vijay Kumar, a representative of SGS India Private Limited.2. While giving challenge to the order aforesaid the argument of counsel for the petitioner is that the SGS India Private Limited is not an oil company as defined under Section 2(g) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order of 2005'). It is asserted that the SGS India Private Limited is not engaged in marketing of sale of motor spirit and high speed diesel directly to con...
Shri Vinayak Colony Vikas Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN468
Govind Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, having membership among the residents of Chopasani Housing Board, preferred this petition for writ denominating it as a public interest litigation claiming the reliefs as follows:(I) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the Allotment of Lottery 16.06.2007 may be quashed.(II) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent may be directed to keep reserved for park the open land which is nearer to house Nos. 15/50 and opposite to house Nos. 15/413 to 418 and 15/32 to 15/34 in Sector 15 of the Chopasani Housing Board Scheme, Jodhpur and not to allot the said land to any body.2. The Division Bench of this Court by order dt. 04.07.2007 held that the litigation is primarily for the cause related to the occupants of houses No. 15/1 to 15/50, 15/413 to 15/424 and 15A to 15W of Sector 15 of the Chopasani Housing Board Scheme and such cause cannot be considered to be as a public interes...
Munni Devi Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN499
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dt. 12.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Excise), Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- upon the petitioner and also confiscating vehicle No. UP-80/P-9927 for violation of the provisions of Section 54 read with Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1951.2. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that in view of proviso to Section 14 of the Act of 1951, the Commissioner (Excise) by imposing the penalty and confiscating the vehicle acted beyond the jurisdiction vested with him. It is asserted that the petitioner was carrying Molasses from Sambhal, District Muradabad in Uttar Pradesh to Indore in the State of Madhya Pradesh, thus, as per the proviso to Section 14 of the Act of 1951 he was not required to have any pass.3. From perusal of the order impugned dt. 12.10.2006, it reveals that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not carrying adequate ...
Swaroop Devi (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Murti Bhagwan Satya Narainji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj951
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.2. This second appeal on behalf of the defendant-tenant, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises out of a suit for eviction and arrears of rent filed by the plaintiff- respondent against the defendant-appellant, which has been decreed by both the courts below on the ground of denial of title as well as tenancy of plaintiff by the defendant.3. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are as under-The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction, in respect of rented premise, in the trial court, on 29.1.1980 wherein it was pleaded that the defendant took the suit premise, the description of which is mentioned in Para 1 of the plaint, from one Saubhagmal adopted son of Nathulal, on monthly rent of Rs. 8/- and executed a rent-note dated 12th July, 1978 (Exhibit-1) in favour of Saubhagmal. Shri Saubhagmal gifted the said property to the plaintiff through registered gift-deed dated 26th November, 1979 (Exhibit-...
Paramveer Singh Vs. Suresh Kanwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: II(2008)DMC276
ORDERG.S. Sarraf, J.1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 3.8.2007 passed by Family Court No. 1, Jaipur in regular case No. 199/2002 whereby the application of the respondent filed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been ordered to pay the respondent maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000 per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 12.6.2002.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 125, Cr.P.C. maintenance allowance should be awarded from the date of order and not from the date of application without assigning any reason and in this case as the Family Court has not assigned any reason, therefore, the maintenance allowance should be made payable from the date of order. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court Qamruddin v. Smt. Rashida II(1992) DMC 328 : 1992 (1) WLC (Raj.) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›