Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj128; 2003(1)WLC495; 2003(2)WLN383
Arun Kumar, C.J. 1. This batch of appeals and D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3879/2001 raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The only additional point raised in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3839/2001 is that it challenges vires of Section 3(36) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) read with Rule 3, Sub-rule (9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence Against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'No Confidence Motion Rules') on the ground that these are violative of Articles 14 and 243-R of the Constitution of India. Though, several legal issues have been raised in these cases, the foremost point is, as to whether nominated members of a Municipal Board, who have been meetings of the Board, should be counted in total no confidence in the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Board.2. As per facts on record, no confidence m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1979Raj1; 1978(11)WLN663
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed against an order of the District Judge, Ajmer, dated 27th Sept. 1977, whereby an application filed by the defendant under Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was dismissed.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of a shop on the ground of his reasonable and bona fide necessity, default in the payment of rent and on account of denial of his title by the defendant. The defendant moved an application under Section 13 (5) of the Act, 1950, on 7th Aug. 1975 which was the first date of hearing of the case. In this application the defendant submitted that the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 9,200/- for the period of 1st Oct., 1974, to 31st May, 1975 have already been paid to the Commercial Taxes Officer Ajmer by defendant on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 11A of the Rajasthan Sales-tax Act, as ordered by the Commercial Taxes Officer Ajmer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1984Raj14; 1982()WLN740
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. A short but interesting question as to whether a person receiving no vote at an election should be considered to have obtained the lowest member of votes or not arises in this case.2. The undisputed facts are that for the election to the office of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nokha four persons were duly nominated as candidates. The voting was completed in three rounds and the votes obtained by each one of the four candidates in the three rounds ware as under :--Ist roundIInd roundIIIrd round1.Kesarichand5582.Shri Niwas7873.Gangadutt32104.Dev Kishan08-('E' stands (or elimination)3. The respondent Kesarichand obtained the highest number of votes in the third round and as such he was declared elected to the office of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nokha. The case of the petitioner-appellant is that Devkishan having received no vote in the first round, he should not have been considered at all to have been a candidate at the election and Gangadutt should have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(1993)ACC193; AIR1993Raj38; 1993(1)WLC86
Mathur, J. 1. All these special appeals involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the convenient disposal of all these appeals, the facts given in the case of R.L. Goyal v. The State of Rajasthan and others (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 405 of 1992) are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner is an existing operator of the existing route Bharatpur to Basedi and holds one non-temporary stage carriage permit which is valid up to 20-11-1994. A draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1939) was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 25-7-1986 inviting objections with regard to the aforesaid route.Formerly the Special Secretary (Home) was hearing the objections but vide notification dated 17-9-1990 the Secretary, Transport Department Rajasthan, Jaipur was appointed to hear and decide the objections. The Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was repealed and a new Act, nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1967Raj18; [1966]17STC235(Raj)
Beri, J.1. By an order of this Court dated the 2nd May, 1958, the Commissioner of Sales-tax Rajasthan was directed to refer a question of law under Section 15 (3) of the Rajasthan Sale-tax Act (Act No. 29 of 1954) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and it is thus that this reference comes for opinion.2. M/s. Lalchand Jalamchand of Bikaner (hereinafter called 'the assessee') were assessed for the assessment year 1956-57 on a turnover determined at the figure of Rs. 96,992/9/9. It raised a tax liability in the sum of Rs. 12,114/1 against the assessee which they disputed on the ground that they had merely imported hydrogenated vegetable and edible oils which were sold by their commission agents M/s. Pirdan Prem Chand of Bikaner (hereinafter called 'the Commission Agent'). The assessee claimed to be not liable because they made no sales and for the commission agent it was contended that they stood exempted from payment of sales-tax as they had deposited the requisite fee in the sum of Rs. 500...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1970Raj26; 1969()WLN1
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This appeal has been brought by certificate granted under Section 18 (2) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18th March, 1966 in S. B. Civil Misc. Application No. 61 of 1965 (in S. B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 452 of 1960), 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated within a short compass. 3. The plaintiff-respondent Radhey-shyam (landlord) filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment from a shop situated in Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur, against the defendants-appellants Namamal and others (tenants) on two grounds viz., that the defendants have not paid rent of the premises for more than twelve months and that the premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for his own occupation. The landlord's plea for personal necessity was rejected by the trial Court. However the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed on the ground that the defendant-tenants had committed defa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj13; 1972()WLN709
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal bythe defendants directed against the 'judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Partabgarh (Camp Chittorgarh) end. inter alia, raises the question whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 29 of the Raiasthan Public Trusts Act. 1959 (Act No. 42 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. The suit was filed on 27-8-1962 by the Panch Mahesihwaris of Chittorgarh and it concerns a temple known as Shri Laxmi Narainii's temple situated at Chittorgarh. It was for an injunction requiring the defendants Jagan Nath and Laxmi Lal to hand over certain articles of the temple which were in their custody as Puiaris of the aforesaid temple and further refrain from performing the work of 'Sewa 'Pooia' in the temple.Stated in brief the plaintiffs' case was that the temple belonged to the Maheshwari Community and was being managed through their Panch as. The latter had employed the defendants for performing the 'Sewa Pooia' at the temple an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1977Raj42; 1976(9)WLN410
ORDERRajinder Sachar, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the imposition of a ban issued under Rule 230 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 (to be called the rules) on plying the tempos between Sanganeri Gate to Khasa Kothi, via Mirza Ismail Road. Jaipur City, by the Regional Transport Authority respondent No. 3. The same has to be effective from 1-7-1976.2. The petitioner holds a contract carriage permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region which is valid upto 31-3-1979. In this permit the route area mentioned is the Municipal limits of Jaipur City. It may be noted that the banned portion viz., Sanganeri Gate to Khasa Kothi falls within the municipal limits of Jaipur. As the petitioner is aggrieved against the said decision by the Regional Transport Authority he has moved this court in the present writ petition.3. Section 74 of the Act empowers the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1977Raj46
V.P. Tyagi, Actg. C.J. 1. These 27 special appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned single Judge D/-22-12-1975 whereby the learned Judge has held that the proceedings commenced under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referredto as the 'old Law') for the determination of the ceiling and the surplus area of the land-holder shall even after the Rajasthan' Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Act No. 11 of 1973) (hereinafter called the 'new Law.) came into force, be governed by the old Law and the new Law shall have no effect on such proceedings. Having felt aggrieved by this finding the landholders have preferred these appeals.2. In order to resolve the controversies raised in these appeals it will be relevant to give a short history of various laws enacted by the legislature from time to time for the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings. For the first time, the law was made in the State of Rajasthan by enacting the Rajastha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj143; 1984()WLN357
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This order will decide an important question relating to payment of court-fee-on an appeal under Section 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (for short 'the Ordinance') against the judgment of a learned single Judge passed in an appeal under Section 96, Civil P. C.2. We may, succinctly, recount the facts,which are necessary for deciding the question.The plaintiffs-respondent's suit for specific performance of an agreement was dismissed by the District Judge, Pali, vide judgment and decree dt. June 4, 1983. The plaintiffs filed appeal in this court under Section 96 of the Civil P. C. Learned single Judge, by his judgment dated Nov. 17, 1983, accepted the appeal, set aside judgment and decree dt. June 4, 1963 of the learned District Judge, Pali and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of the agreement Ex. 2 and dt. April 25, 1967. A direction was made that the plaintiff shall deposit the purchase money amounting to Rs. 12,318.50 along ...
Tag this Judgment!