Rajasthan Court December 2008 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.
Jagat Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2195
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Like the Biblical story of David and Goliath, this is a case of an individual pitted against the colossal State. Having bought some properties at Pushkar, an ancient and a holy city in Rajasthan, the petitioner has been running a hotel in the name and style of 'Hotel Pushkar Palace' since 1981. There were certain legal battles fought between the petitioner and the Municipality Board ('the Board', for short), Pushkar-the respondent No. 3 before this Court. The Board lost these battles. The Board claims to have served a notice on the petitioner on 22.4.06 directing him to remove the illegal constructions/encroachments made by him, within three days. But notwithstanding the said notice, on 22.4.06 itself, the Board demolished a part of the hotel and sealed thirty-eight rooms of the hotel. When the petitioner protested against the illegal action of the Board, the Board issued yet another notice on 28.4.067 Stunned by the demolition, aggrieved by the notice dated 28.4.06,...
Bright Future Teacher Training Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1197
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders of rejection of No Objection vide orders dated 7/10.11.2008 which were passed after the final order passed by this Court in the writ petitions earlier filed by the present petitioners as well as other connected writ petitions on 5.11.2008.2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, they are again clubbed together and are being decided together.3. For the purpose of decision of these writ petitions, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13038/2008 Bright Future Teachers' Training College v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. are taken as the leading facts.4. The petitioner applied to the National Council for Technical Education (for short the N.C.T.E.') for grant of recognition/permission for starting B.Ed. Course of one year duration with annual intake of 100 students. On 29.4.2008, the petitioner deposited the requisite fee/charges a...
Laxman Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1732
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders Annex.P-2 dated 22.06.1990, Annex.P-5 dated 10.01.2005 and Annex.P-6 dated 28.02.2005 and a direction to the respondents to grant him disability pension w.e.f. 25.07.1989 when he was invalided out from service.2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case which are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner was recruited in Indian Navy on 04.02.1985 after thorough medical examination by the Medical authorities of the Navy, he was found medically fit in medical category 'AYE' and at the time of his recruitment he was not suffering from any disease or disability. On being medically examined by the medical authorities of the Navy at the time of recruitment, his vision was 6/6 of both the eyes. The petitioner while in service and performing the Naval duties, suffered Retinitis Pegmentosa and was exa...
Uma Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1843
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order impugned dated 16.11.2007 Annexure-9 and prayed that the respondents may be directed to issue letter of intent to the petitioner at an early date because he has been placed at Sl. No. 1 in the merit of panel for allotment of retail outlet at Toshina Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur.2. The case of the petitioner is that he applied in pursuance of Annexure-1 for allotment of retail outlet dealership and after due formalities and interview held on 14.9.2006, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 1 in the panel by the Committee constituted by the Corporation for the said purpose. According to the petitioner, he proceeded for obtaining conversion of the land from agriculture to commercial and as such approached the District Collector and obtained No Objection Certificate from the Gram Panchayat. The District Collector also proceeded to obtain further report from the Tehsildar Deedwana by communication dated 7.10.2...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Rent Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1947
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur upon the application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, to be called 'the Act of 1996' hereinafter).2. According to facts of the case, a suit was filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction claiming himself to be the owner of the property and the said property was alleged to be purchased by it from Inderjeet Singh in the year 2005. After issuance of notice therein, a reply was filed by the respondent-petitioners denying the averments made in the suit and it was replied that an agreement for taking the premises in question on rent was executed in between Inderjeet Singh and Union of India and no notice was given to the Union of India. In the reply, it was specifically stated that no agreement between the petitioners and resp...
Dharam Chand and ors. Vs. Jogeshwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj70
ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants aggrieved by the order dated 28th September, 2006 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Jalore rejecting the application of the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC seeking dismissal of the Civil Suit No. 14/2006 on the ground that the earlier civil suit filed by the plaintiff Jogeshwar, namely, Civil Suit No. 3/2003 was withdrawn by him under Order 23, Rule 1, CPC on 21-11-2005 without seeking any liberty from the Court to institute a fresh suit and therefore, the present suit subsequently filed was barred in view of Order 23, Rule 1, CPC and therefore, the suit deserved to be dismissed at the threshold on an application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC.2. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants submitted that in the application seeking withdrawal of earlier Suit No. 3/2003, in which the plaintiff Jogeshwar claiming the same relief, namely, declaration of hisjadogtJojT. by the...
Ummed Singh Vs. Chairman and Technical Assistant (District Level Inqui ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2148
H.R. Panwar, J.1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 9th August, 2005 seeking a direction to the respondents to restrain them from proceeding further in pursuance of the second enquiry report and for some reason if the punishment of removal or dismissal from service is visited to the petitioner, same may be declared illegal and may be quashed.2. This matter came up before this Court on 10th August, 2005. While issuing notice to the respondents of the writ petition as well as of stay application, by an interim order, further proceedings in pursuance of notice dated 11.8.2005 (Annexure-7) in the writ petition was directed to be stayed till next date of hearing. However, by order Annexure-11 dated 11th August, 2005, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged the order Annexure-11 terminating his services.3. Briefly st...
Heera Mani Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2163; 2009(3)SLJ144(Raj)
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 26.10.1996 (Annex.29) terminating the services of the petitioner's late husband Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma, has been challenged by the petitioner after death of the Govt. employee whose services came to be terminated on 26.10.1996.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner's husband Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma while in employment of the respondent Police Department on the post of Constable voluntarily remained absent without leave and therefore, the respondents initiated inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the CCA Rules' hereinafter) against the police constable Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma. A memorandum of charges was served on him and inquiry officer on the basis of the material placed before ...
Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: (2009)12VatReporter35
P.S. Asopa, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the case was heard finally.2. The short point involved in the matter is that after issuance of the fresh certificate of incorporation under the Companies Act on 25.2.1994 the form of the Company was changed from Private Company to Limited Company, Therefore, for the dues of sales tax for the subsequent years from 1994-95 onwards, the Directors are not personally liable. The impugned recovery order has been issued against the Director without making any efforts of recovery against the Company.3. Mr. Saxena submits that the change of name is the strategy adopted by the petitioners to escape the liability of Directors.4. I have gone through the contents of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter.5. Out of many judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his aforesaid contentions, paras 3 and 4 of the latest judgment in K.S. Narasimhan v. CTO, Kuralagam, Annexe, Chennai (2008) 11 VST 2...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Amit Kumar Maheshwari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: 2009[13]STR119; (2009)22VST397(Raj)
N.P. Gupta, J.1. All these five appeals involve common question of law, being as to whether the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs dated 20-9-2004, as referred to in the order under appeal, governs the case of the respondent?2. Appeals No. 26/2007, 70/2006, 3/2007, and 74/2006 were admitted on different dates, by framing substantial question of law, may be differently worded but purportedly to cover this controversy. However, appeal No. 54/2007 was admitted on 23-10-2007, without framing any substantial question of law. However, in view of the above, the said question is hereby framed in this Appeal No. 54/2007 also.3. The facts in all the five appeals are different, as they are different assessees, carrying on different types of business, did not get registration as required by the relevant chapter, introduced by the Finance Act, 1994, relating to imposition of Service Tax, hereafter referred to as the 'Service Tax Act', and notices were issued. Thereupon adjudic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »