Rajasthan Court April 2009 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.
Aalam Deen Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj164; RLW2010(1)Raj109
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gandheli, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District Hanumangarh. However, a motion of no confidence came to be passed against him in the meeting dated 15-3-2007. Questioning the validity of the proceedings on the said motion of no confidence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition; and according to the petitioner, the proceedings are vitiated for various reasons as noticed in brief hereinbelow.2. In the first place, the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 Smt. Bachcha Devi, who was the Ward Panch from Ward No. 7, was not entitled to participate in the proceedings relating to such no confidence motion for having already tendered her resignation on 2-1-2007 (Annex. 4) that was duly accepted on 23-2-2007 (Annex. 6) and thereby the seat from, the said ward was declared vacant; and the requisite information in that regard was forwarded by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nohar to the District ...
Jethmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj391
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing orders dated 08.05.1995 (Annex.-8) and dated 10.07.1996 (Annex.-9) and, further prayed that the State Government may be restrained from deciding the matter in pursuance of order Annex.-9.2. According to the facts narrated in the writ petition, plot No. 86 situated in Ward No. 12 was allotted to the petitioner by the Municipal Board, Nokha on 01.10.1975. After allotment, sale-deed was executed, however, sale of land made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Addl. Collector, Bikaner vide order dated 31.10.1983. The respondent Board sent communication to the State Government against order dated 31.10.1983 passed by the Addl. Collector, Bikaner; and, in turn, the State Government directed the Board to regularize the allotment. On the direction issued by the State Government to the Board for regularizing the land, the Board made regularization of allotment vide its order dated 05.08.1989 and, ...
Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and ors. Vs. Ram Bharosi Kedarnath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2670
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The point to be adjudicated in the present appeal is - whether the electricity bill raised by the defendants-appellants from the plaintiff-respondent for the month of January, 1989 was correct, or not?2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that electricity bill raised by the defendants for the month of January, 1989 may be declared as void and without jurisdiction, and that the defendants are not entitled to recover the amount of the said bill. The case of the plaintiff was that in the last three years neither he receive nor the defendants raised an electricity bill of such a huge amount showing 16720 units of electricity consumption, therefore, it appears that ten thousand units have wrongly been shown in the meter. The last meter reading was 45354 units and the present meter reading is shown to be 62104 units showing the consumption of 16720 units which is exaggerate and instead of 62104 ...
Gulam Kabeer Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1308
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 8.3.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 27.12.96 issued by Officer on Special Duty (Rules) Department of Finance (Rules Division), Government of Rajasthan, under the orders of the Governor of Rajasthan and seeking directions for fixation of his pension treating his actual pay on the date of retirement as Rs. 2,950/-, stands dismissed.2. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Department of Education , Government of Rajasthan on 4.S.58. and was later promoted to the post of Senior Teacher. He retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation as Senior Teacher on 31.1.97.3. The Government of Rajasthan issued an order dt. 25.1.92 prescribing selection grades for employees in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services & those holding isolated posts . On completion of 27 years of service, v...
Ramji Das Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3099
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged three orders, namely order dated 15.04.1989 (Ann.1), order dated 03.06.1995 (Ann.6) and order dated 16.04.1996 (Ann.8). The first order was passed by the Mining Engineer, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota whereby the Mining Engineer had imposed an excess royalty of Rs. 5,76,494/- upon the petitioner. The second order was passed by the Additional Director (Mines) whereby the Additional Director upheld the order dated 15.04.1989. Lastly, the third order was passed by the Dy. Secretary, Mines Department whereby he has confirmed the order of the Additional Director dated 15.04.1989.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has a mining lease for mineral lime stone (building stones) in an area measuring 4500 X 2000 Sq. Feet in village Pipa Kheri, Tehsil Ramganj Mandi, District Kota. The said licence was initially given on 11.04.1961. It was continuously renewed till 2001. According to him, he has been carrying out the mining operation as per the...
Hitkari Vidyalaya Sahkari Shiksha Samiti Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rajasthan N ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2546
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on similar of facts, the common order passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge are under challenge, both the appeals have been heard together and are been decided by this common order.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we have very carefully gone through the material on record.3. The matter appears to have a chequered history. The respondents concerned employees have been working on different posts with the appellant-institution. The concerned employees along with some other employees preferred writ petitions before this Court claiming parity of pay sale with that of employees of State Government as prescribed by the University concerned. As many as five writ petitions came to be disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 20th August, 1996. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court on 20th August, 1996 is reproduced as under:I consider it appropriate that the pe...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj116
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court of learned Addl. District Judge No. 3, Udaipur dated 18.5.2004 allowing the plaintiffs appeal No. 32/2003 (19/2003) against the decree dated 14.1.2003, whereby, the learned trial Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 1, Udaipur had dismissed the suit for declaration and possession filed by the plaintiffs.2. Since this appeal was directed to be heard and decided at the admission stage itself, therefore, at the joint request of the parties, the same is finally decided and following substantial question of law is framed for consideration by this Court Under Section 100 CPC.Whether the first appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit for declaration and possession, reversing the findings of learned trial Court and holding the plaintiffs owner of 'Khush Mahal' and 'Pachoson-ki-lane' buildings as part of Mardana Mahal, City Palace, ...
Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN312
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. By way of this petition for writ, the petitioner seeks to question the assessment order and the consequential demand notice dt. 13.03.2006 (Annex. 10) as issued under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 ('the Act of 1951').2. On background facts, the petitioner has averred that as a finance company, it had extended hire purchase finance facility to the respondent No. 3 in relation to a vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-30-P-0378; and, for the respondent No. 3 having defaulted in payment of installments, it had repossessed the vehicle on 23.02.2000 without receiving any documents i.e., the certificates of registration, insurance, fitness, permit, token etc. It is the case of the petitioner that under the communications dt. 19.02.2000 and 17.03.2000, the requisite information regarding re-possession was given to the Regional Transport Officer, Rajsamand. It is further alleged that the Regional Transport Officer was informed under the communication dt. 15.03.20...
Mini Sidhu (Smt.) Vs. the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No. 2 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3604
Dalip Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 01.05.2007 by which the application submitted by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. for closing the defence of the defendant and ordering for striking out from the record the written statement filed by the defendant has been rejected.3. It is not in dispute that vide Annexure-2 ordersheet dated 03.06.2004, the court had granted adjournment to the defendant for filing the written statement and fixed the date as 12.08.2004. The ordersheet dated 12.08.2004 reads as follows:12-8-2004 odqyk; mi- A izfroknh la- 1 dk tckc nkok iwoZ es is'k gS A okLrs tokc nkok izfroknh la- 2 fnukad 30-9-2004 dks is'k gksA4. The said ordersheet is available as Annexure-3 on record. It is not in dispute that the order dated 03.06.2004 (Annexure-2) by which the time was granted to the defendant No. 1 for filing the written statement by the learned trial court was n...
Prabhu Narayan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN529
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dt. 09.05.2002 whereby the Board of Revenue ('the Board', for short) had dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioners for non-prosecution and by the order dt. 05.09.2002 whereby the Board had refused to restore the second appeal, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that on 14.01.1991, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in the Court of learned Assistant Collector, Chaksu Camp- Sanganer against the defendants. The defendants filed their written statements in the case denying all the averments made in the plaint. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the learned Assistant Collector (Trainee), Jaipur. Vide judgment and decree dt. 24.09.1994, the learned Assistant Collector dismissed the suit without affording any opportunity to the petitioners-plaintiffs to lead their evidence. Against the judgment and decree dt. 24.09.1994, the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›