Rajasthan Court April 2010 Judgments

Miraj Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Vs. None

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. It is found that no court fees stamp has been affixed on the file. It appears from Section 391 of the Companies Act 1956 that an application is required for seeking order for convening the meetings of the creditors or class of creditors, or of the members or class of members, as the case may be to be called. Upon application the court may issue direction for conducting such meetings. As per Rule 67 of the Rules of 1959, the application under Section 391(1) is to be 'Judge's Summons' supported by an affidavit, but proposed compromise or arrangement shall be annexed to the affidavit as an exhibit thereto. The summons are to be in form No. 34.2. The petitioner is permitted to affix the court fees stamps on the affidavit as the said affidavit is also an application under Section 391(1) of the Act of 1956.3. Three company applications have been filed by Miraj Tradecom (P) Ltd., Miraj Business Development (P) Ltd and Miraj Products (P) Ltd. However, for the purpose of dec...

Smt. Sadhana Vs. Jda and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. A widow of auction purchaser has approached this Court with legitimate grievance claiming refund of full bid amount having been deposited way back on 23/02/2006 alongwith interest 18% p.a., when the Jaipur Development Authority ('JDA'), a statutory created authority is unable to deliver vacant possession of Farm house plot No. 74 at Ballupura village, Jaisinghpura Khor (Jaipur).2. Respondent-JDA issued a public notice (Ann.1) under a caption 'Your dream Project - Farm House' at Ballupura village, Jaisinghpura Khor notifying auction on 23/01/2006. In reference to which, Anil Kumar Sharma husband of petitioner since intended to purchase Farm House in aforesaid scheme, had participated in auction proceedings and being a highest bidder having offered @ Rs. 2,650/- per sq. mtr., for Farm House Plot No. 74 measuring 3000 sq. mtrs, his offer was accepted and confirmed by respondent JDA vide letter cum demand notice dt.03/02/2006 (Ann.2) - from which it is evident that petit...

Vimla Devi (Smt.) Vs. the Ld. Additional District Judge No. 6 and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1669

R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders dated 06.05.2008 and 05.03.2010, the petitioner has approached this Court. Through the former order, the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur had rejected the TI Application of the petitioner. Through the latter order, the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur had upheld the order dated 06.05.2008.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Smt. Vimla Devi, a widow, claims that she had bought a plot, Plot No. 4, in a housing society established by the Jalmahal Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. She further claims that the said plot is situated in khasra No. 256 which earlier belonged to her father-in-law, Ramchandra. According to her, since respondent Nos. 2 to 7 wanted to dispossess her from the said plot, she filed a suit for permanent injunction. Along with the said suit, she filed an application for temporary injunction. However, after hearing both the sides, vide order dated 06.05.20...

State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Mahendra Pratap,

Court: Rajasthan

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. These intra-court appeals, having been preferred against the common order dated 30.03.2010 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the respective writ petitions and involving similar facts and identical issues, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.2. The grievance of the appellants in these appeals being against the interim directions as issued by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned and else, the writ petitions being pending, suffice it shall be to take note of the background aspects and the facts so far relevant for the present purpose.3. The writ petitions wherefrom these intra-court appeals arise, have been preferred by the contesting respondents (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners) who had been the holders of the licences issued by the Excise Department of the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (the Act) and the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (the Rule...

Dr. K.C. Gupta Son of Shri Onkar Mal Gupta Vs. the State of Rajasthan ...

Court: Rajasthan

Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Petitioner Dr. K.C. Gupta has filed this writ petition challenging memo of charge-sheet and praying for quashment of disciplinary proceedings with further prayer that period of service during his foreign assignment from 25.09.1984 to 12.09.1989 be regularized and accordingly pay of petitioner be ordered to be fixed in the Revised Pay Scales of 1987 and 1989 and, respondents be further directed to grant him all consequential benefits together with interest.2. Ms. Gayatri Rathore, learned Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner was sent on deputation on a foreign assignment with the Government of Libya and in this connection she cited a letter dated 05.09.1984 issued by the Government of Rajasthan. It is contended that respondents in several similar cases such as of Dr. S.N. Mathur, sanctioned leave for the period from 16.02.1984 to 26.12.1988, during which he was on foreign assignment by order dated 05.05.1995. The respondents have acted malafidely and in bias...

Himmat Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioners way back in the year 1997 challenging relaxation in the criteria of promotion in favour of the candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.3. Shri Ankur Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that according to Rule 28A of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954, 50% posts of promotion from Inspector to ordinary/junior scale of RPS were required to be filled in by the criteria of seniority-cum-merit and remaining 50% were to be filled by the criteria of merit-cum-seniority.4. It is contended that the respondents in the selection of the year 1996-97 as against 71 posts, promoted 44 persons on the criteria of seniority cum merit and only 24 persons have been promoted on the criteria of merit-cum-seniority and sealed cover procedure was adopted in case of 3 persons, but even if 68 posts are taken into consideration, still the criteria has been flouted a...

Ramjas Vs. State

Court: Rajasthan

C.M. Totla, J.1. Challenged is appellant's conviction for the offences and sentences awarded for (i) Section 307 IPC - 5 years RI, fine of Rs. 200/0 for nonpayment one month RI (ii) Section 326 IPC - four years RI with fine Rs. 200/- in default one month RI (iii) Section 324 IPC - one year RI with fine Rs. 100/- in default 1 month RI (iv) Section 323 IPC - 3 months RI with fine Rs. 50/- in default 15 days RI. All sentences are ordered to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case is that at 12:30 of night in intervening between October 5th and 6th, 1988 Jagdish PW/2 arriving at P.S. Taranagar told and informed SHO PW/7 that he, father's elder brother's son Ram Kumar, father's sister's son sultan and sister's husband Pokar Ram all came to plough land of Pokar Ram bringing tractor of Balbeer PW/4 and they having ploughed 5 bigha and when night fell, came in village to house of Nand Ram PW/3. At about 8:30-9 in night Sultan PW/4 went out to urinate and when from a little distance heard was his ...

Babu Lal Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Vineet Kothari, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of second default of the two courts below against the present defendant-appellant Babulal. The learned Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, the first appellate Court by the judgment and decree dated 27.2.2009 confirmed the decreee of eviction passed by the learned trial court in Civil Suit No. 43/2004 dated 19.3.2007.2. The grounds taken for eviction as stated by the leaned counsel for the respondent-landlord are; (i) second default and (ii) bonafide necessity and for other grounds, both the learned courts below have concurrently held the grounds in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs and ordered for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the shop in question which was given on rent to him way back on 1.8.1978 at the rate of Rs. 52/-per month.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant Mr. M.L.Chhangani urged that there was no second default on the part of the appellant-defendant and after the paym...

Smt. Kamla Kumari, Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. These three intra-court appeals, preferred against similar nature orders dated 06.04.2009 as passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the respective writ petitions, having almost similar facts and involving identical questions, have been heard together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. Put in a nutshell, the grievance of the petitioners-appellants is against rejection of their candidature for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008, issued under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 ('the Rules of 2008'), while considering them over-aged; and, according to the appellants, they have not been provided upper age relaxation though entitled therefor in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008.2. The relevant facts and background aspects concerning these matters could be noticed in brief thus: The respondent No. 2, the Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner issued the a...

Smt. Kamlesh Sankhla Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Petitioner, as alleged in writ petition, was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III. On completion of requisite period of service, she was granted benefit of selection scale of Rs. 6500-10500. However, later on, vide notification dated 08.06.2001 which was given retrospective effect from 01.07.1998, her pay scale was reduced and recovery of excess amount has also been ordered to be made.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that controversy raised in instant petition has been decided by judgment of Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 208/06 along with 41 other connected appeals, State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Raniwas Porwal 2008 (2) WLC 406, on 13.12.2007. Relevant part of judgment supra reads as under:3. However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1....