Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: competition amendment act 2007 section 4 amendment of section 5 Court: rajasthan jodhpur Page 18 of about 189 results (0.134 seconds)

Dec 19 2014 (HC)

All Villagers of Jui Tamboliya Village Vs. State and Ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... elections are imminent and in view of article 243-o included in part-ix of the constitution of india, which has been incorporated by amendment as section 117 of the act of 1994 and subsequently, by inserting section 117a by notification dated 26.4.1995 barring the jurisdiction of the civil court, there was no ..... in terms of s.101 of the act, 1994 and at the same time, there is a bar to interference by ..... the objections raised is of no substance for the reason that under 73rd amendment to the constitution, while introducing part-ix bar to interference by courts in electoral matters u/art.243-o(a) and corresponding amendments made in the rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994 while functioning for delimitation/alteration of the panchayati raj institutions are regulated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2015 (HC)

Mohan Lal Vs. Firm Lodha Fabrics and Ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... is pertinent to note that the principle of waiver regarding territorial jurisdiction having statutory recognition under old section 21, now under sub-section (1) thereof, vide cpc (amendment) act, 1976, stands extended to pecuniary jurisdiction as well, by way of insertion of new sub-section (2), which reads as under: (2) no objection as ..... plaintiff inasmuch as, the proceedings taken for all these years by the court below shall stand set at naught. moreover, admittedly, in view of the subsequent amendment, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil court (s.d.) already stands enhanced from rs.50,000/- to rs.5 lacs and therefore, as on the date ..... of the court cannot operate retrospectively and therefore, the suit instituted in the court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, shall not stand regularised on account of subsequent amendment of the statute, enhancing the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. learned counsel submitted that the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction has to be treated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2012 (HC)

Rajesh Purohit @ Bholiya Vs. State

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... this chapter. (3) nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence against this chapter... thus, from the amendment which has been brought into the provision from 1987, it becomes apparent that the prosecution under this chapter can be instituted by the person ..... aggrieved or by a recognised association. the offence under section 17b of the act is punishable under section 27 of the drugs and cosmetics act and is punishable with a minimum punishment of 5 years and may extend to life term also as per the amendment brought about in the year 2009. obviously, the offence is a cognizable offence, therefore, there .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2013 (HC)

Hy Decore Tiles Pvt.Ltd Vs. None

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... if any, of the companies act, 1956; (as amended upto date) and as 4 sb company petitions nos.5/2013, 4/2013, and 6/2013 placed before the meeting and duly initialled by ..... to align the contents of the scheme with the mandate of as-14 read with section 211 (3a) of the companies act, 1956. the scheme of amalgamation alongwith the proposed amendment was read out and explained by the chairman and the question submitted to the meeting was whether the equity shareholders of the ..... of miraj multicolour pvt.ltd.(transferee company) with bhagyadeep enterprises pvt.ltd.& hy decore tiles pvt.ltd.(transferor companies) under the scheme of amalgamation (as amended) between the transferor companies and the transferee company and their respective shareholders.secured and unsecured creditors.pursuant to sections 391 to 394 and other applicable provisions, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2013 (HC)

Miraj Multi Colour Pvt.Ltd Vs. None

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... if any, of the companies act, 1956; (as amended upto date) and as 4 sb company petitions nos.5/2013, 4/2013, and 6/2013 placed before the meeting and duly initialled by ..... to align the contents of the scheme with the mandate of as-14 read with section 211 (3a) of the companies act, 1956. the scheme of amalgamation alongwith the proposed amendment was read out and explained by the chairman and the question submitted to the meeting was whether the equity shareholders of the ..... of miraj multicolour pvt.ltd.(transferee company) with bhagyadeep enterprises pvt.ltd.& hy decore tiles pvt.ltd.(transferor companies) under the scheme of amalgamation (as amended) between the transferor companies and the transferee company and their respective shareholders.secured and unsecured creditors.pursuant to sections 391 to 394 and other applicable provisions, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 2013 (HC)

Chananmal Vs. Bimla

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... breakdown of the marriage is provided by the legislature for granting a decree of divorce. this court cannot add such a ground to section 13 of the act as that would be amending the act, which is a function of the legislature.11. learned counsel for the appellant has stated that this court in some cases has dissolved a marriage on the ..... marriage is also a ground for divorce. in our opinion, this can only be done by the legislature and not by the court. it is for parliament to enact or amend the law and not for the courts. hence, we do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.13. had both the parties been ..... of divorce. reliance was placed on judgment of hon'ble supreme court in the case of naveen kohli v. neelu kohli : (2006) 4 scc558and samar gosh v. jaya gosh : (2007) 4 scc511 learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgment impugned passed by the trial court. it was submitted that it is apparent from the pleadings and evidence on .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2014 (HC)

State Vs. M/S Jeewan and Sons

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... conferred by this section. . hon'ble supreme court in jagdish singh v. natthu singh : air1992sc1604while dealing with philosophy of section 21 of the sr act permitted amendment of the plaint at the stage of special leave petition/appeal before it. in that view of the matter, the applications dated 04.03.1997 and ..... no substance and the same also deserve to be dismissed; it was further contended that the applications seeking amendment in the cross-objections, plaint and amendment in application seeking amendment of plaint and application seeking amendment in the amendment application pertaining to cross-objections are merely reflective of the vacillating stand of the plaintiff and the said ..... compensation by the trial court being contrary to the provisions of section 21(5) of the sr act are no longer valid in view of the fact that the application filed by the appellant seeking amendment in the 15 plaint for incorporation of the prayer has been accepted. the crucial issue pertaining to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2013 (HC)

Lalit Shanker Vs. Smt,sunder Bai

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... no. 177/2012. lalit shanker vs. smt. sunder bai // 19 // omission cannot be ignored as insignificant. it is clear that in the scheme of the act of 1984, as amended by the amendment act no. 59 of the year 1991, it was never the intention of the legislature that a petition seeking revision of an order passed in the proceedings under chapter ..... pending before a high court or any order passed under chapter ix of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the family courts (amendment) act, 1991. (3) every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a family court. (4 ..... section 125 cr.p.c. from the report, it appears that the hon'ble division bench considered the provisions of section 19 of the act of 1984 as they stood prior to the amendment by the amendment act no. 59 of the year 1991 and held the appeal to be not maintainable for having been filed against interlocutory order. though the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2013 (HC)

Bhagyadeep Enterprises Pvt.Ltd Vs. None

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... if any, of the companies act, 1956; (as amended upto date) and as 4 sb company petitions nos.5/2013, 4/2013, and 6/2013 placed before the meeting and duly initialled by ..... to align the contents of the scheme with the mandate of as-14 read with section 211 (3a) of the companies act, 1956. the scheme of amalgamation alongwith the proposed amendment was read out and explained by the chairman and the question submitted to the meeting was whether the equity shareholders of the ..... of miraj multicolour pvt.ltd.(transferee company) with bhagyadeep enterprises pvt.ltd.& hy decore tiles pvt.ltd.(transferor companies) under the scheme of amalgamation (as amended) between the transferor companies and the transferee company and their respective shareholders.secured and unsecured creditors.pursuant to sections 391 to 394 and other applicable provisions, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 2015 (HC)

Smt. Shobharani @ Shobha Devi Vs. Chandra Singh and Anr

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in surya dev and in view of the recent amendment to section 115 of the civil procedure code by the civil procedure code (amendment) act, 1999. it is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of section 115 cpc has been curtailed. in our view, even if the scope ..... , submits that the learned court below has committed grave and serious jurisdictional error in not exercising powers under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the act of 1998, therefore, both the impugned orders are not sustainable. learned counsel further submits that the learned court below has failed to exercise powers under 4 ..... nature of conveyance, and being insufficiently stamped, the same is not admissible in evidence. thereafter, while resorting to section 37 of the rajasthan stamp act, 1998 (for short, 'act of 1998') the learned court below 2 impounded the document and directed petitioner-plaintiff to produce certified copy of the document with the order before the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //