Rajasthan Court February 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.
Anil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2933
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed validity of an appointment accorded to the respondent No. 5on the post of L.D.C. in Jai Narayan Vyas Girls Senior Secondary School, Jodhpur, a non-government educational Institution, recognized by the State Government (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Institution') and has sought declaration that being validly selected, he was entitled to be appointed on the said post in the respondent Institution. The petitioner has sought further directions for his appointment on the post of L.D.C. In the regular pay scale and regularisation of his services from the date of his initial appointment in the regular pay scale admissible to the post of L.D.C. The petitioner has also sought direction against the respondents No. 1 to 3 not to stop grant-in-aid admissible for the post of LDC in the respondent Institution.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 is a Non Government Educational Institution...
Sakoo (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN580
Munishwar Nat H Bhandari, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No. 6 on the post of 'Anganbari Karyakarta' by Gram Panchayat, Khardia of Panchayat Samiti, Sindhari.2. The challenge has been made mainly on the ground that as per Annexure/7 dt. 15.09.2003 issued by the Women and Child Development Department, the selection was required to be made as per para No. 6 of the circular where it is provided that if a candidate is having qualification then the preference is required to be given.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner is having qualification of graduation she is being ignored whereas the non petitioner No. 6 having only qualification of Xth has been given appointment in violation of the circular dt. 15.09.2003. The further grievance raised in the writ petition is that as per the circular in reference, the selection has to be made by the Gram Sabha whereas in the present matter such selection h...
Ashok Kumar Dayama Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN449
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. This bunch of cases involves same question of law therefore, they were ordered to club together. The matters are heard and the same are decided by this common judgment.2. For the convenience, fact of Writ Petition No. 3656/06 Ashok Kumar Dayama v. State and Anr. have been taken into consideration. The respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement calling for the application for the post of Sub-Inspector, Police vide Annexure/4. As per para 6, it was provided that as on 01.01.2008 a candidate should not have attained the age of 25 years and should not be of the age of less then 20 years. The petitioners herein have challenged the said clause on the ground that the selection on the post of Sub-Inspector was lastly made in the year 2003 and thereafter vide annexure/4 the advertisement has been amended and was issued now in the year 2007 i.e. almost after lapse of 4 years and if anybody reached to the age beyond 25 years in intervening...
Rajendra Panda Vs. Udailal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN566
Manak Mohta, J.1. This Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the order dt. 12.09.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, No. 2, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No. 100/2007, whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC filed by the plaintiff-respondents and granted temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff-respondents and against the defendant appellant.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for permanent injunction along with Temporary Injunction Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in the Court of District Judge, Bhilwara. Later on, that suit along with temporary injunction application was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Bhilwara for adjudication. It was stated in the plaint and temporary injunction application that there are 20 Panda famili...
Omwati Vs. Ghure
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN375
Dalip Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This misc. appeal has been filed by the plaintiff appellant against the order by which the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 has been dismissed. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dt. 10.07.2001 in respect of the agriculture land in which the plaintiff as well as the defendant are co-sharers. The allegation of the plaintiff is that the deceased husband of the plaintiff No. 1 entered into an agreement for purchase of the share of a defendant to the extent mentioned in the plaint vide agreement dt. 10.07.2001 for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- and at the time of the execution of the agreement a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid by the deceased-husband to the defendant. Subsequently also the amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was paid on two occasions on 20.06.2002 and 11.06.2003 thereafter, the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 died on 21.10.2003. On 02.04.2004 the balance amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs...
Mahesh Sharma (Dr.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1884
R.C. Gandhi, J.1. This public interest litigation has been presented by the petitioner, a lawyer of the Bar, seeking directions to the respondents to have thorough investigation into death and injuries inflicted to numerous persons who were involved in scrap dealings.2. This petition has been filed on basis of the Newspaper report. No other evidence is on record. The petitioner has not taken any trouble to find out as to whether such incidents are taking place regularly and that too because of the material of scrap. There is no supporting evidence. No home work or enquiry has been done by the petitioner that the respondents are not holding any enquiry in such cases. It was the duty of the petitioner to make out before the Court that the State is not diligent in dealing with such cases and the rights of the people are being trampled. No such incident has been shown by the petitioner except report of the Newspaper.3. The Apex Court has indicated the parametres for filing the petitions by...
Metro Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kanak Lata Chopra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2132
Ashok Parihar, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 20.7.1991, passed by the trial court, by which, while allowing the suit for rent and eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'landlady') a decree for eviction has been passed against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'tenant') and possession of the suit premises was to be given within two months.2. The dispute is in regard to a shop No. A-2, Jayanti Market, Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur including basement, ground floor and first floor besides stairs. The suit premises were required by the landlady for jewelery and handicrafts business to be started by her husband. There is no dispute that a lease agreement made effective from 1.2.1980 was executed initially for three years and further extended for a period of two years upto 1.2.1985. The suit premises were taken on lease by the tenant for the purpose of shifting of show-room of tyres and tubes of ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kothari Impex
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Raj)133
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the learned Tribunal dt. 29th July, 2004, affirming the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 15th March, 1999, whereby the learned CIT(A) had set aside the order of the AO. The AO had dismissed the assessee's application filed under Section 154 of the IT Act, for rectification of the mistake. The appeal was admitted by framing following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in upholding the order passed by the learned CIT(A) by holding that the impugned adjustment made by the AO was outside the purview of Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act.?2. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts are, that the assessee had filed the return, and thereupon after taking recourse to procedure provided under Section 131 etc., and giving necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the assessment order was made on 26th Aug., 1996. In the re...
Raga Ram Vs. Smt. Kokali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj151; RLW2008(3)Raj2409
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The matter comes up on defective side, and the Registry has reported the appeal to be barred by one day, and two other defects have also been pointed out.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed application under Section 5, Limitation Act today and prayed for time to remove other defects.3. However, the perusal of the impugned order shows that this is an order passed by learned Single Judge in appeal filed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal had dismissed present appellant's application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 23.11.98.4. In our view, in view of the latest judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kamla Devi v. Khushal Kariwar and Anr. reported in : AIR2007SC663 , wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered and followed the earlier. Constitutional Bench Judgments also, the present appeal, being an intra court appeal, filed against the judgment ...
Saral Kumar Sharma Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ190Raj
ORDERMahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the punishment order dated December 18, 1999, order of the appellate authority dated January 27, 2001, to treat the period of suspension as spent on duty and it should be counted for all purposes, quash and set aside the recovery order dated October 16, 2001 and also that if any recovery is being made by the respondents from salary and allowances of the petitioner, during pendency of the writ petition, the said recovery may be declared illegal and directions be issued to the respondents to refund the amount with interest.2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he was initially appointed on the post of Clerk in the respondent Bank. On February 27, 1985, he was doing the main work, which was allotted to him. The Bank Manager, on February 27, 1985 itself verbally directed the petitioner also to work in cash Section to accept share application money of L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »