Rajasthan Court April 2010 Judgments
Ram Lal Vs. Daya Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant-tenant (defendant in suit for eviction) in his usual style of flair with some stubbornness submits that the case is only listed on application for preponing the date to which he does not object and when the matter was preponeded for today itself, he was asked to address the Court for admission / hearing of the case, he refused to do so and informed the Court that the appeal has already been admitted on 24.8.2009. Therefore, without assistance from the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the respondent was asked to go through the impugned judgments.2. Both the learned courts below have concurrently given the findings of fact as to bonafide necessity of the respondent- plaintiff about the suit premises in an eviction suit filed by him in Rent Control law.3. Both the Courts below have held on the basis of evidence that the suit premises, a residential house situated at Sadul Colony, Bikaner of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bharti Hexacom Ltd. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Since the grievance raised in all the writ petitions are similar, the same are being disposed of by this common order.2. Instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-company assailing the notice served by the Assessing Authority under Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for different financial years.3. It has been alleged in the notice the Assessing Authority that the petitioner-company has established its telecom infrastructure for providing broad band services for which Optical Fiber Cables (OFC) have been laid down and thus it comes within the meaning of goods covered under the Sales Tax/VAT and is liable to be taxed.4. After notice was served, the petitioner, while submitting reply, raised certain objections holding that it is exempted in view of Entry No. 12 of the Schedule I appended to the Act, 2003. At the same time, further objections were raised that in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in AIR 2006(SC)1383 it is not covered under the Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kartar Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this special appeal, an application has been moved with a prayer that in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 436/2009, Sukhdev v. Prakash Chand and other three special appeals on 16.04.2010, no intra-court appeal shall lie from an order passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this special appeal deserves to be dismissed being not maintainable in view of the above judgment.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent-applicant that in this special appeal, judgment dated 31.08.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5429/2005, Kartar Singh v. Board of Revenue and Ors., is challenged and said judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of power conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended that the learned Single Judge has examined the validit...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rekha Agrawal Vs. Rfc and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Petitioner who was one of the bidders in auction proceedings initiated by Rajasthan Financial Corporation, has filed the instant petition assailing order dt.30/10/2006 (Ann.4) whereby while cancelling approval of the sale of auctioned industrial plot, the respondents forfeited a sum of Rs. 41,000/having been initially deposited at the time of auction having taken place on 18/10/1995.2. It appears from material on record that a loan of Rs. 6.80 lacs was sanctioned to respondent-3-Firm (M/s National Garnetings Ltd) on 27/02/1986 and Rs. 5,57,300/-was disbursed but the Firm failed to make repayment of dues; as such its Unit was taken into possession on 15/04/1993 Under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 towards loan dues of Rs. 10,91,058/-and accordingly, was put to auction on 18/10/95 wherein Vishnu Agrawal (petitioner's husband) participated and offered the highest bid offer of Rs. 8.80 lacs, which was accepted vide sale approval letter dt.18th/2...
Tag this Judgment!Rsrtc Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This special appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dt.1st May, 2003 passed by learned Single Judge whereby writ petition of the appellant, which was directed against impugned orders of recovery of E.S.I Contribution [Ann.4 to Ann.10], was dismissed on the ground of efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal available to the petitioner/appellant before the Employees' State Insurance Court under the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1948'].3. The submission of learned Counsel for appellant is that vide notification dt.23rd December, 1996 issued by Government of India [Labour Department], the provisions of Rules 50 and 51 of E.S.I [Central] Rules, 1950 were amended and the wage limit of Rs. 3,000/-was substituted to Rs. 6,500/-for the purpose of applicability of the Act and share of contribution of employee as well as employer, both were also enhanced. On the basis of above...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Jaswani Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Petitioner Pradeep Kumar Jaswani, who at the relevant time was working on the post of Junior Engineer with respondent Department, filed this writ petition way back in the year 1997 challenging the order dated 13.08.1997 by which he was superseded in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer by five of his juniors, who have been impleaded as party respondents No. 3 to 7.2. Learned Counsel for Petitioner argued that even though the criteria of promotion was seniority-cum-merit but respondents have superseded the petitioner by five of his juniors, whose names appeared at serial No. 332, 343, 392, 397 and 400 in the seniority list published on 11.10.1990, whereas name of petitioner appeared in that very seniority list above them at serial No. 331. It is submitted that according to provisions of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1967, the respondents were required to adhere to the rule of seniority while making p...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Sharma and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. In these writ petitions, each of the petitioners were removed on the premise that they by producing forged B.Ed. degrees, secured appointment. The petitioners thereafter challenged the order of their removal before this Court by filing the writ petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed. However, in special appeals filed by them, the division bench of this Court by judgement dated 20.9.1995, set aside the order of terminating their services and left it open to the respondent-authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by observing principles of natural justice and other procedural requirement which may have to be complied with as per the appropriate provisions of law and rules. The petitioners were thus reinstated in service and were also paid consequential benefits as per the judgement of this Court.2. The respondents subsequently served upon each of the petitioners, notice to show- cause as to why their services be not terminated on the premise ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
Govind Mathur, J.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur, by judgment and order dated 24.8.2004 convicted accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code and 4/25 Indian Arms Act and also sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC : Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' simple imprisonment.Under Section 4/25 Arms Act : Two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 7.3.2004 at about 09:00 AM, PW-1 Prakash orally reported at Police Station Jhadole that on the eve of Holi festival, in the evening of 6.3.2004 a dance programme with drum beating was organised and in the programme aforesaid he, Shankarlal, Dinesh, Roopa etc. were beating the drums. At about 09:00 PM, when Shankar was beating the drum he had an ...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, State Sainik Board Vs. Bhanwar Lal Gurjar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Case called twice. No one is present on behalf of petitioner even in second round. On earlier dates also none appeared on behalf of petitioner. The matter was therefore considered on the basis of arguments contained in the memo of writ petition and submissions made by Dr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of workman-respondent.2. Petitioner, Secretary, State Sainik Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur challenged the award dated 01.08.1996 passed by Labour Court, Jaipur, by which retrenchment of workman- respondent with effect from 01.05.1990 was held to be illegal and holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per annum from the date of retrenchment till the date of the award. Petitioner, in writ petition, pleaded that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that petitioner does not come within definition of 'industry' and that appointment of workman-respondent was made only on temporary and daily ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudbir Kumar Vs. J.V.V.N.L. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsels.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner as a case of theft of power was made against the petitioner and certain dues of electricity charges were raised against the petitioner.3. Against the said dues, the petitioner initially approached the Permanent Lok Adalat under the provisions of Legal Services Act, 1987 and on 18.7.2009, the said Lok Adalat held that a case in a competent criminal side Court had been filed by the respondent J.V.V.N.L. and that was pending and since the petitioner was demanding for summoning of defective meter itself in the said Lok Adalat which the said Lok Adalat found it was not practicable. Therefore, the said Lok Adalat observed that only when the criminal side case is decided and then the petitioner, if aggrieved, can approach the said Permanent Lok Adalat again.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since thereafter the respondents again disconnected the power supply of the petitioner, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »