Rajasthan Court October 2011 Judgments

Piyush Chopra Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Rajasthan

The petitioner, said to be 26 years in age, and a qualified chartered accountant, has filed this writ petition stating grievance that the respondents have unnecessarily kept his application for issuance of passport pending and were not issuing the requisite passport despite completion of all the formalities and despite his having answered all the queries and objections. The petitioner has, inter alia, averred that earlier he made an application to the respondent No.3, the Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur for issuance of passport on 29.06.2004. On the said application, address proof was demanded that was, according to the petitioner, furnished. The matter, however, remained pending with the respondent No.3 and ultimately, the petitioner was informed in the month of July 2008 that his file had been closed on 10.10.2007 and that he shall have to submit a fresh application for passport. The petitioner has further averred that in the given circumstances, he made an application afresh on 08...

State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Rajpal Singh Chauhan

Court: Rajasthan

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant/plaintiff/respondent has filed these applications in S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.54/2010 and S.B.Civil Second Apeal No.472/2009 for recalling of the order of this Court dated 22nd February, 2011 {reported in AIR 2011 Raj. 101; 2011 (2) ILR (Raj.) 301 and 2011 (2) WLC Raj. 595}. 3. Learned counsel for applicant/respondent submitted that he had raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the second appeals, which were directed against dismissal of the appeals being barred by limitation, consequent upon dismissal of the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and in support of his contention, he relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ratansingh V. Vijaysingh and Others reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 279 and Full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of The Commissioner, Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corpn. Vs. Shrishail and Others, reported in AIR 2004 Karnataka 75 (Full Benc...

Vijay Vyas Vs. Abhishek Goyal and Others

Court: Rajasthan

In this writ petition fifled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, by which, while passing stay order in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur passed an order that during pendency of the appeal the execution of the judgment dated 01.04.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur shall remain stayed provided the petitioner-appellant deposits 3 times of the rent amount which is Rs.15,150/- per month as mesne profits with the respondents. As per facts of the case, respondents No.1 and 2 filed an application for eviction from shop against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur on the ground of personal bona fide necessity and that petition was allowed vide judgment dated 01.04.2011 by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the...

Manjula and Another Vs. Somnath Nayyer

Court: Rajasthan

1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 8/9/2008, whereby, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the counter claim filed by the defendant Somnath Nayyer came to be rejected by the learned trial court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat urged that under the agreement Annex.2 dated 11/2/1995, the plaintiffs-Bhagwat Singh Mehta and Smt. Manjula Mehta had entered into an agreement with defendant Somnath Nayyer only for sale of portion of land measuring 740 sq. ft. out of their jointly owned land of plaintiffs measuring 9510 sq. ft. for Rs.51,800/- and there was no agreement to sell any flat in the said agreement dated 11/2/1995. However, the said defendant, Somnath Nayyer, illegally took possession of one of the flats, namely flat no. 5 in a building raised by another company, M/s UTDC and, therefore, the plaintiffs had to file a suit for eviction and possession aga...

Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Jitendra Kumar

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

Vinay Kumar Chawla, Member: 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 22.12.2009 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur IInd by which the District Forum has accepted the complaint of the respondent and has ordered the appellants to refund Rs. 96,720 and 12% p.a. interest from 24.7.2006 and Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental agony, has also awarded Rs. 2,000 as costs. 2. In this matter the respondents father Ashok Kumar bought a Gypsy No. RJ 13 C 4653 in auction sale from the appellants on 24.7.2006. When the buyer applied for registration of this vehicle to the registration authority, Sriganganagar where this vehicle had originally been registered, the said authority raised a demand of Rs. 2,41,288 as tax and penality due against this vehicle. The father of the respondent requested the appellants to give him the tax clearance certificate and get the vehicle registered in his name but they failed to do so. 3. The appellants have challanged the judgment of the learned Dis...

Parshav Nath JaIn Mandir Trust Vs. Avtar Singh

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012AIR(Raj)39

1. The present revision petition has been filed by defendant Parshav Nath Jain Mandir Trust being aggrieved by the order dated 12-1-2011, whereby, the learned trial Court has rejected its application under O. 7, R. 11, C.P.C. for rejecting the civil suit filed by the plaintiff tenant Avtar Singh seeking specific performance of the compromise entered into between these two parties in an earlier eviction suit filed by the defendant Trust as landlord against the present plaintiff, who was defendant tenant in that suit. 2. In eviction suit No.113/2005 filed before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, a compromise was arrived at between the parties that the defendant tenant would handover the possession of the plot of land in his possession as tenant measuring 45’ * 65’ to the plaintiff landlord and in turn after construction of shop measuring 12’ * 25’ on the portion of said plot shall be given back to the defendant tenant on the tenancy of Rs. 200/- per month, which rent wo...

Sardar Khan Khokhar Verses Devji Patel and Others

Court: Rajasthan

1. This order shall dispose of an application preferred by the respondent returned candidate as per the provisions of O. VII, R.11, Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed are that the petitioner, an elector, being aggrieved by the election of the respondent No.1, as a Member Parliament from 18 (Rajasthan) Jalore Parliamentary Constituency in general election, 2009, presented an election petition alleging improper acceptance of nomination, that materially effected result of the election. 3. As per the election petitioner, the nomination papers filed by the respondent No.1 though having certain omissions and defects of substantial nature were accepted improperly by the Returning Officer. The defects and omissions so pointed out are as follows:- “(a) That column marked (ii) in Part III A (Bhag 3ka-in Hindi) in all the aforesaid four nomination papers was left blank, which is to the following effect:- “Whether the candidate – has been convicted for ...

Narpat Lal Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: O R D E R :: (1) Narpat Lal The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10144/2010.Vs.(2) Sangeeta GehlotThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10143/2010.Vs.(3) Vimla DeviThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10145/2010.Vs.Date of Order::::11thOctober 2011.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, G.C., for the respondents. ...

Jodhpur Development Autho., Jodhpur Vs. State Consumer Disp. Red. Foru ...

Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010 & 11 other connected writ petitions ( See Schedule) Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors. Judgment dt: 11/10/20111/53IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Jodhpur Development Authority, vs. Jodhpur State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010 & 11 other connected writ petitions ( See Schedule) DATE OF : PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. M.C.Bhoot, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Surendra Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: 1. The petitioner, Jodhpur Development Authority, through its 11th October, 2011Commissioner, has approached this Court by way of present batch of writ petitions, inter alia, claiming the quashing of judgment and order dated 26/10/2009 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jodhpur on a complaint filed under Section 12 of the ...

Shree Cement Limited and anr Vs. State of Raj. and ors

Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 SHREE CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN DTD. 11.10.20111/105IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 Shree Cement Ltd. V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Judgment : 11th October 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr.S.Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bapna, Advocate General and Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Mathur, Lokesh Mathur, Mr.Sunil Beniwal, for the respondents. BY THE COURT -1. How negative executive interventions, lack of political will and wisdom can cause laggard, sluggish and distorted industrial growth in a State, though rich in minerals, lime stone in present case in the State of Rajasthan and sufferer is a cement manufacturing unit, will be borne out from what follows in this case. 2. Another caveat on legislative practices, particularly subordinate legislation and executive policy decisions and the decision...