Rajasthan Court February 2008 Judgments
Gkw Limited and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj90; RLW2008(2)Raj1627
ORDERMunishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. In all these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the Chapter VII to Rajasthan Finance Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2006') and Rules framed thereunder, as well as consequential notification issued. It has been contended that the State of Rajasthan initially enacted Rajasthan Land Tax Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act of 1985') for imposition of tax on the mineral bearing lands. However, said enactment was held to be ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for want of competence of the State Government to impose such tax. After the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to the enactment of Act of 1985, the State of Rajasthan has now come up with a new enactment under Chapter VII of the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2006 which was then published in the Gazette on 31st March, 2006. After the enactment, the Government even framed Rules on 25.9.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 61 of the Act of 2006. According...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and State of Rajasthan Vs. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1760
ORDER1. These two appeals have been filed by Vidhyut Nigam, and the State, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.3.2006, passed in S.B. Contempt Petition No. 220/1997. The order is sought to be challenged in both the appeals, on a common ground, of the order having the effect of enlarging the scope of the original order, for the disobedience whereof, the contempt petition was filed. It is contended, that this was not within the permissible scope of the contempt jurisdiction. The Learned Counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court, rendered by the Division Bench, presided by the same learned Judge, who has passed the impugned order, being in University of Rajasthan v. Dr. S.C. Gupta reported in 2007(4) WLC (Raj.) 600.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order, firstly, on the ground, that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.5.1997, for disobedience whereof, the contempt petition was filed, did clearly comprehend the ...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Singh Vs. Narendra Singh through L.R.'s.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj125
ORDERAshok Parihar, J.1. This appeal is directed against me judgment and decree dated 13-5-1982 passed by the trial Court by which the suit for partition and mesne profits filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.2. The dispute is in regard to plot No. 0-1-B, measuring 1171 square yards at Hospital Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. The defendant No. 2 in the suit, Har Lal Singh (since deceased) was father (hereinafter referred as defendant H). The defendant No. 1, Narendra Singh (hereinafter to be referred as defendant N) was elder son of defendant H. The plaintiff-appellant, Fateh Singh (hereinafter to be referred as plaintiff F) was the younger son of defendant H. It has been alleged that defendant H purchased the plot in dispute in the name of defendant N from his own income and raised the construction as per contribution from the joint family. Thus plaintiff F is also entitled for 1/3 share of the property in dispute as also share of the profit earned y defendant N from rent of th...
Tag this Judgment!Desh Raj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2273
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned control for the parties.2. Those three writ petitions pertain to allotment of fair price shop for 1/2 portion of Village Bhukrawali, Tehsil Hindaun, District Karauli.3. The brief facts giving rise to these petitions are that a notice was issued on 2/2/2007 inviting applications from the candidates desirous to get allotment of fair price dealer shop.4. Writ petitioner Deshraj in SBCWP No. 4367/07 has come out with the grievance that while advertisement was issued for one fair price shop covering 1/2 of Village Bhukrawali, Tehsil Hindaun, District Karauli, ultimately the respondents have appointed two dealers instead of one, vide order dated 7/5/2007. Had the applicants been invited for two fair price shops instead of one, the other eligible candidates would have also applied. The procedure as contained in the Circulars dated 7/10/2005 & 7/5/2001 issued by the Government has been given a complete go- bye.5. Writ petitioner Brijendra Singh in SBCWP No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Hathi @ Ramjilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN542
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. However, on an appeal, the appellate Court, while upholding the order of conviction passed by the trial Court, reduced the sentence from one year simple imprisonment to 4 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the same, the present revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant PW-6 Lal Singh, in his cross-examination, admitted that an information about the incident was given to him by some children but the prosecution did not examine any children in the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Mushtaq Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2351
ORDERNarendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 22-10-2007, whereby the trial Court closed the cross-examination of PW-10 Awaiz Hussain.3. The revision petition was filed with a delay of 30 days, therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred for condonation of delay contending therein that the petitioner is in jail during the course of trial of the case, therefore, he could not prefer the revision petition under the prescribed period of limitation hence he prayed that in the interest of justice the delay in filing the revision petition be condoned.4. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and, after considering their submissions as well as the reasons assigned in the application, I am satisfied that there is sufficient cause for condonation of del...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Sharma Vs. the Judge, Family Court No. 2 and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2271
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5/6/2007 by which the learned Family Court has granted interim- maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 3000/- as cost of the litigation and Rs. 200/- for appearing on every date of hearing of the case.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that interim- maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month has been ordered to be paid to the respondent-wife whereas total monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs. 14842/-. It is argued that respondent-wife is still residing with the parents of the petitioner at his native place and that she is having income from the agriculture land of the petitioner. She has been maintaining herself for last more than three decades. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that Family Court directed payment of maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of application. Such payment could be allowed only from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gore Lal Vs. the Divisional Commissioner and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2268
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Aggrieved by the impugned-orders dated 6/8/1997 (Ann. 1) and 26/6/1998 (Ann. 2) passed by the learned Collector and District Magistrate Dholpur and learned Divisional Commissioner Jaipur rejecting the application of the petitioner and thereafter dismissing the appeal filed against the order dt.6/8/97, petitioner has preferred this writ petition questioning non-renewal of his arms licence.2. Petitioner was holding the Arm Licence bearing No. 26/86 of Gun 12 Bore No. 12210. A criminal case bearing F.I.R. No. 105/1992 was registered against him at P.S. Badi, Distt. Dholpur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 307 I.P.C. Consequent upon registration of the said F.I.R., police seized his above gun. Thereafter, petitioner SBCWP No. 4045/2007 was acquitted of all the charges by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 28/11/1996. He moved an application before the learned Collector & District Magistrate Dholpur for renewal of the arm license. The said applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Karam Chand Vs. L.Rs. of Labh Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1685
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case Case No. 546/1987 dated 19.7.2001 and against the judgment and decree dated 10.2.2004 affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal (Decree) No. 23/2001. The trial Court passed the decree for eviction against the appellant-tenant on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the land-lord plaintiff-Labh Chand (now deceased). The appeal of the tenant-appellant was dismissed by the appellate Court and hence this second appeal.2. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant took on rent certain properties from Thakur Vikram Singh. Thereafter, in the year 1980, i.e. on 14.7.1980 executed a fresh lease-deed in favour of Thakur Vikram Singh's daughter Miss Urvashi, who was minor in the year, 1980, therefore, the deed was exec...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Swaroop Vs. Civil Judge (Jd) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1777
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner challenge the order dated 14.5.2007, whereby the application moved by non-petitioner Hari Ram was accepted. Facts relevant to the present case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Court and therein, a reference of a document executed on 30.12.1964 as well as a partnership deed dated 17th February, 1993 was made and those documents were also submitted. The respondent-Hari Ram, who is defendant in the suit, raised objection regarding admissibility of those documents, being unregistered documents. The objection, so raised by way of an application was duly replied by the petitioner showing that the document dated 30.12.1964 was nothing, but a settlement of partnership of properties between the partners and the said document was otherwise produced for collateral purposes.2. The learned Court below considered the application moved by the respondent-Hari Ram and, thereupon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »