Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996WLC(Raj)UC1; 1996(2)WLN245
M.G. Mukherji, Actg. C.J.1. The writ petitioner-appellant was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bakaliya, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur. There were two fold charges against him of having abused his position as a Sarpanch and a proceeding was taken against him by the State Government under the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. The first charge was that a piece of agricultural land measuring 5 bighas was gifted to the Panchayat by one Rupa Ram for common use. This piece of land without being converted was given by way of pattas treating it as Abadi land and thus, the apposite Rules were violated and the writ petitioner-appellant misused his position as a Sarpanch. The second charge against him was that the land which was meant for common use and was received as a gift in the shape of agricultural land was given by way of pattas, violating the terms and conditions of the gift deed.2. The defence inter-alia of the writ petitioner-appellant was that he might have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(1)WLN238
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. The first writ petition has been filed challenging the vires of Section 3(4), Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') defining 'excisable article', Chapter IV-A, Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules) relating to the denatured spirituous preparations and notification dated August 20, 1979 (Annexure 5) adding therein 'Denatured Spirituous Preparations' in Rule 69B of the Rules and declaring that 'Malathion Technical', manufactured by the petitioner, is not an excisable article. The second writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated March 16, 1982 (Annexure 2) enhancing the permit fee leviable under Rule 69B of the Rules from 10 paisa to Re. 1/- per liter on denatured spirtituous preparations and for refunding amount of Rs. 1,53,000/- collected in excess as such.2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is as follows: It is a public limited company. It carries on business of manufacturing pesticides...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(2)WLN413
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. in all these writ petitions, a common question of law involved is the interpretation of Ordinance 67A of the Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of factual matrix. Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 544/99) is being taken into consideration.2. The petitioner entered into the services of the respondent College. At the time of entering into the service, an agreement was entered in between the petitioner and the respondent College. In the agreement, the age of superannuation was mentioned as 60 years. The petitioner kept on serving the respondent College. In the meantime, the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') came into operation and was given effect from 1.1.1993. Under the Act of 1989, Rules were framed which were named as The Rajasthan Non-Government Education...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2007Raj24; RLW2007(1)Raj210; 2006(1)WLC7
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Sentinels of our past, repository of our culture and heritage, forts and palaces dot the hills and desert of Rajasthan One such fort is the fort of Chomu, a town situated thirty three kilometers from Jaipur. Scion of the royal family of Jaipur State, the Nathawats started the construction of the fort in the 17th century, and extensively enlarged it in the 18th century. The fort houses a palace complex and the fortress walls ('the Parkota') and a ditch ('the Khai'). The fort is the bone of contention between the petitioners and the State. Vide Notification dated 28-3-78, published on 8 4-1978 in the Rajasthan Gazette, the State had declared the fort to be a 'protected monument' under Section 3(4A) of the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Antiquities Act, 1961 (henceforth to be referred to as the State Act, for short). The petitioners are challenging the validity of the said notification. They are also challenging the letter dated 16-9-81, whereby the objec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN339
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Question No. 1:The precise controversy which has been raised by the petitioners in this group of cases is whether Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India, which exempts the property of the Union of India from imposition of all taxes by the State extends to the levy of Sales tax imposed by any enactment of the State on any transaction which can properly constitute a sale for the purpose of levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods. In exercise of the powers conferred under Entry-54 of the State list through the Law enacted by the State legislature.2. Provision Of The Constitution:For appreciating the contours of the controversy whether the immunity from imposition of tax envisaged Under Article 285 of the Constitution of India is absolute in terms irrespective of the nature of tax and reaches in-direct taxes also or the immunity is confined to the taxes leviable on property directly, it will be profitable to refer to the provisions of Articles 285, 287 and 289 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN491
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and orders of the learned Board of Revenue dated 27.12.1997 (Annx. 4) and 2.7.1998 (Annx. 6) by which the reference made by the Authority Under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act has been rejected and its review application has also been dismissed.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the land encompass in Khasra No. 702 measuring 56.9 Bighas, Khasra No. 708 measuring 83 Bighas and Khasra No. 705 measuring 40.14 Bighas situate in revenue estate Shiy Distt. Banner was in the name of Doli (Math Shri Garibnath Ji Maharaj), Respondent No. 1 was recorded as a cultivator of the said and his name also had been mentioned in the earlier revenue record. The land in Khasra Nos. 702 and 705 came to be recorded in the name of respondent No. 1 antl the land in Khasra No. 708 in the name of respondent Nq.2. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are the transferees of the land from resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(3)WLC419; 2003(1)WLN255
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. A bunch of 75 writ petitions were filed challenging the vires of certain provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). the petitioners in the respective writ petitions have prayed as follows:(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the incorporation of Section 54(ka) and Sub-Sections (4) to (9) in Section 69 of the Excise Act may be declared ultra vires and be sruck down.(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the amendment in the Excise Act, 1950, by incorporating Section 9-B may be declared ultra vires and be struck down.(c) By further appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order in the respective writ petitions passed by the respondents may be declared invalid and quashed and set aside.(d) Pending decision, if any further order is passed or action is taken prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same may also be quashed and set aside.On behalf of the petitioners, we heard S/Shri N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Matter has come upon misc. application (Inward-24680/dt.22/11/2010) filed by respondent-1 (Prakash Jhunjhunwala) in Company Appeal-1/2009 U/r 9 of Company (Court) Rules, 1959, assailing proceedings initiated by appellant Bank (secured creditor) regarding auction of immovable property (E-16, IPI Area, Electronics Complex, Kota) held on 22/09/2010; and seeking direction to the appellant-Bank to hold auction proceedings afresh in accordance with procedure under Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (Rules, 2002). It is a matter of record that appellant-Bank preferred company appeal U/s 10-F of Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Co. Act) against order dt.10/03/2009 of the Company Law Board and while admitting appeal, interim order was passed by Company Court on 24/07/2009 which was sought to be modified by appellant Bank by way of application, which was partly accepted vide order dt.15/04/2010 whereby liberty was granted to appellant Bank to dispose of immovable assets in its possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1993Raj30; 1992(2)WLN377
ORDERJasraj Chopra, J. 1. The case of the petitioner is that he is the holder of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Suratgarh to Chatargarh route via Mile 80. It is a 'A' Class route, 120 kilometers in length and exists in Bikaner Region. His permit on Bus No. 9366 is valid up to 6-9-1992. Suratgarh to Mile 80 is a route 69 kilometers in length and is a part and parcel of the route Suratgarh to Chatargarn via 80 Mile and completely overlaps it to the extent of 69 Kilometers, out of the total length of 120 kms. The Regional Transport Authority has sanctioned 6 daily return services on the full length of the route and one shuttle service between Suratgarh to Mile 80.2. It is alleged that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have applied for grant of stage carriage permit on a portion of this route i.e 'Surat-garh to Mile 80 and proposed a particular time-table in their applications, which read as under:SuratgarhMile-80Mile 80SuratgarhManoj Kumar5.00 p.m.7.00 p.m.8.30 a.m.10.30 a.m.Mayadevi4.00...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1986Raj13; 1985(1)WLN437
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. An unfortunate feud between the husband & wife has resulted in this matrimonial dispute. The respondent husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging therein that he has been a good scholar in bindi literature but got an illiterate wife, who smokes and is habitual for committing thefts so also abusing him. The cruelty was alleged against the wife appellant and, the desertion was also alleged but, the wife-appellant denied all these allegations. It was alleged that it was father-in-law of the respondent husband who managed and paid for his education and this education has proved to be curse because now having been educated at the cost of the wife, he started giving abuses for illiteracy of the lady-wife. It was alleged that the husband was not giving good treatment to the wife.2. The evidence was recorded and before that, petition for divorce was amended and the same was allowed a...
Tag this Judgment!