Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: dehra dun act 1871 Court: rajasthan Page 85 of about 8,415 results (0.179 seconds)

Nov 17 1978 (HC)

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Regional Transport Auth ...

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1979Raj120

..... appearing in the similar scheme as to the jaipur-alwar route, both duly approved and published in accordance with the provisions of section 68-d, motor vehicles act, 1939 (for short, the act), in the rajasthan gazette extraordinary dated, december 14, 1960. the expression 'approved scheme' will hereafter be used as having reference to either or both ..... permits in respect of the notified route or portion thereof.'8. it is in the context of these prohibitory and exclusionary provisions of the approved scheme, the act and the rules made thereunder that one has to read the words 'till the validity of the aforesaid permits' in order to determine whether these words confer ..... permit-holders on the bharatpur-bhusawar route shall not be precluded in future to get the renewal of their permits under the provisions of the m. v. act in spiteof the nationalisation of the bharatpur-jaipur route.with respect to the learned judge, i amconstrained to say that he has proceeded on erroneous premises and drawn .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1993 (HC)

Dalpat Raj Bhandari and anr. Vs. the President of India and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1993Raj194; 1993(3)WLC14

..... services of the state is neither a political issue nor matter of policy. we respectfully agree with the above proposition of law that if a legislative act or an executive decision on policy matter violates any constitutional guarantee or has potential of constitutional repercussions as enforcement of an assured right, which is ..... 'mandal commission report' case. the apex court vide para 558, has emphasized that under our constitution, the yardstick is not if it is a legislative act or an executive decision onpolicy matter but whether it violates any constitutional guarantee or has potential of constitutional repercussions as enforcement of an assured right, under chapter ..... or modifications that may be made therein under article 372, apply for the interpretation and that as per provisions of section 16(15) of general clauses act, the power of appointment includes the power of suspension or dismissal. according to the appellants, for the removal or dismissal of ministers, the principles of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 1959 (HC)

Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1960Raj92

..... if the agreement amounted to a special law and the indemnity clause contained in it was not affected by the rajasthan excise duties ordinance 1949 and the finance act, 1950.40. the learned district judge stated in his judgment that the report of the indian states finances enquiry committee acquired the force of law when its ..... be pressed too far. a general statute may repeal a particular statute. there may be facts and circumstances showing that the legislature intended to repeal the special act. each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.37. as has been pointed out above the indian states finances enquiry committee had submitted ..... the commencement of this ordinance in that state until altered, or repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority. 'law' was defined to mean any act, ordinance, regulation, rule, order or bye-law which having been made by a competent legislature or other competent authority in a covenanting state has the force of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 1960 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Rikhabchand Dhariwal

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1961Raj64

..... party which was opposed to it. (his lordship after discussing the evidence, concluded:) we, therefore, hold that it has not been proved that the commissioner acted under instructions from the government. 20. next it was argued that by delegating its powers to the commissioner under section 43 of the ordinance, the government constituted ..... his lordship after discussing the evidence concluded:) there was thus no reasonable or probable ground for the commissioner to be satisfied that the plaintiff was likely to so act in a prejudicial manner. 17. section 44 of the rajasthan public safety ordinance is as follows: 'no suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall lie against ..... of rajasthan after independence. 11. the state of kotah was an indian state before independence. an indian state' has been defined by the government of india act, 1935 as 'including any territory........ belonging to or under the suzerainty of a rule, who is under the suzerainty of his majesty and not being part .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 1952 (HC)

Surajmal Vs. the Rajasthan State

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1953Raj78

..... the liability which arises from disobedience did not arise till the ordinance came to an end. as the liability had not arisen, section 6(c) of the general clauses act has no application to this case. it would have been a different matter if disobedience had taken place, say on the 6th of september. in that case, the liability ..... aforesaid and any such investigation, legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and any such penalty forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing act or regulation had not been passed.' 10. the argument on behalf of the state is put in this manner. an order had been passed under section 33(1) (a ..... taken under section 33 of the ordinance at a time when it was in existence gave rise to certain liabilities and obligations under the provisions of the general clauses act and the state was clothed with the authority to assume control on the 14th of september 1951.6. the ordinance in question was promulgated by his highness the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 1972 (HC)

State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Ramdhan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1973Raj71; 1972()WLN839

..... land- owner or land-holder holding tenure khata under proprietary, mourusi, or khatedari rights and is not liable to ejectment under the provisions of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955. rule 3 circumscribes the powers of the colonisation officer and rule 4 makes the general colony conditions applicable. rule 5 requires the allotting authority to prepare ..... for holding provisions to be inseverable, since in such a case there was a strong inference that parliament did not intend that anything less than the whole act should be law. at a later stage his honour refers to the rule 'that provisions are to be considered severable and general words distributable',' wanchoo j. ..... because the classification between pre-1955 and post-1955 holders of land was correlated to a reasonable nexus arising out of the date when the rajasthan tenancy act came into force. he, however, held that rule 19 was invalid because the state prescribed different standards for allotting land to families in bhakra proiect and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 1983 (HC)

Mela Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1984Raj116; 1983()WLN507

..... or by any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under that act or the rules made thereunder, shall be performed and exercised by any other lawfully appointed or constituted officer or authority specified in the notification. now under section 6 ..... 1978. this notice is annexure 2. this notice purports to have been issued under section 6 of the act. the case of the petitioners is that this notification under section 6 is in fact not a declaration under section 6 inasmuch as the collector, sriganganagar. could not ..... the case of the petitioners further is that without giving any notice to non- petitioners nos. 2 and 3 as required by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the act, the authorities, namely, the collector, sriganganagar, got published another notice being notification no. f12/13/rev. 771456 dated 16-3-1978 in the raiasthan raipatra dated 30-3- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1986 (HC)

Sagarmal and ors. Vs. Laxmi Vastra Bhandar

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1987Raj112; 1987(1)WLN103

..... is the clarion call for equality before law which in terms inspires unity and integrity of the people, irrespective of place of birth or residence. this act of liquidation of debts of marginal farmers, who are poor and downtrodden and who have been suppressed, oppressed and repressed and consequently depressed on account of ..... on in rajasthan in bhilwara district where the money lender creditor is operating and the defendant hails from madhya pradesh, neighbouring state of rajasthan. both the acts define agricultural laws, landless agricultural labourers and marginal farmers. the definition of marginal farmer in madhya pradesh is contained in clause (g) of section 3 ..... down trodden rural masses.4. in madhya pradesh, in 1975 a similar law under the caption 'the madhya pradesh gramin rin vimukti tatha rin sthagan adhiniyam (act no. 32/1975) was enacted for relief from indebtedness to members of the schedule castes and schedule tribes, small and marginal farmers, landless agricultural labourers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1969 (HC)

Kotah Match Factory Kotah Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1970Raj118; 1969()WLN75

..... by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorise.' (note: the words 'or the rajpramukh' were omitted by the constitution (seventh amendment) act, 1956). the provisions of article 299 are mandatory in character and contravention of these provisions would nullify the contract and would make them void and unenforceable. no state ..... the governor (or rajpramukh) or governor-general directed or authorised. it was also held that the provisions of section 175(3) of the government of india act, 1935, were mandatory as the object of enacting these provisions was that the state should not be saddled with liability for unauthorised contracts. the evidence in that ..... . air 1968 sc 1218, his lordship ramaswami, j., speaking for the court, held that the provisions of section 175(3) of the government of india act 1935, or the corresponding provisions of article 299(1) of the constitution of india are characterised as mandatory and their contravention would nullify the contracts and make them .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1982 (HC)

Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1983Raj154

..... electricity duty payable by the consumers to the company but was not paid to the respondents.5. the company was a licensee under the indian electricity act (act no. 9 of 1910) for the purpose of generating and for taking energy from the rajasthan slate electricity board for supplying electricity to consumers in the ..... main controversy which callsfor determination is whether the company falls within the definition of 'consumer' as defined under clause (c) ofsection 2 of the act and whether theblock of premises used by the companyfor the purpose of generation and fortaking energy from the rajasthan stateelectricity board for supplying electricity to consumers can ..... as under :' 'consumer' means any person who consumes electrical energy sold or supplied by a distributor of electrical energy or a producer.........'producer in the above act was defined as :'a, person, who generates electricalenergy at a voltage exceeding 100 voltsfor his own consumption or for supplying to others.'10. taking into .....

Tag this Judgment!


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