Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... persuaded to interfere with the impugned orders and consequently the writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal provided under section 9-a of the act of 1950. it is directed that if the petitioners prefer appeal within a period of two weeks from today before the appellate authority, the competent authority ..... the impugned orders.statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners and the said remedy of the appeal is provided under section 9-a of the act of 1950. section 9-a of the act of 1950 is reproduced as infra: section 9-a appeals and revision (1) an appeal shall lie (a) to the excise commissioner from any order passed ..... versus state of rajasthan & anr (5)s.b.civil writ petition no.2663/2004 jabbar singh versus state of rajasthan & anr. (6)s.b.civil writ petition no.7452/2006 ranchhod & ors.versus reg. & secretary & ors (7)s.b.civil writ petition no.8349/2009 puranchand versus state of rajasthan & ors.(8)s.b.civil writ petition no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... issued by the then jodhpur state, the possession was proved by various rent-notes (ex. 3 to6) and proceedings initiated by the tehsildar under section 91 of the land revenue act, which proceedings were subsequently dropped; the documents produced by the defendants did not bear the signatures of the executive officer or tehsildar, jetaran by ..... the disputed lands were situated in the aabadi of the town of jetaran and aabadi land is excluded from the definition of land under section 5(24) of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955. both the courts below after thoroughly and critically examining the factual, documentary and legal position, came to the conclusion that while ..... and decree dated 01.09.2011 passed by additional district judge (fast track) no.1, pali, headquarter- jetaran, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 passed by civil judge (senior division).jetaran, has been confirmed. the facts in brief may be noticed thus:- the plaintiffs- respondents filed a suit for permanent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... but the elaborate submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties persuaded this court to decide a vital issue of privileged communication . within the meaning of section 126 of the act of 1872. section 126 refers to professional communications, which reads as under: 126. professional communica- tions.-no barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless ..... take premium of its serious lapses. learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the suit was filed in february 2000 and ex-parte decree was passed on 19th january 2006 and for setting aside the same the appellant has submitted application under order 9 rule 13 cpc after a lapse of three years without explaining the inordinate delay and therefore ..... [1].in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment m/s.srei international finance limited versus ashok kumar s.b.civil misc. appeal no.1606/2013 date of judgment: november 28, 2014. present hon'ble mr.justice p.k.lohra, j. mr.s. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... four years which is admittedly beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. three years as envisaged under article 57 of the limitation act. section 3 of the limitation act mandates that court is required to examine the prescribed period of limitation for institution of a suit, appeal and application even though limitation ..... construed the evidence of the appellant in deciding issue no.3 against her. mr.parihar, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that section 16 of the act of 1956 postulates a presumption as to validity of a registered document relating to adoption and, therefore, to dislodge this presumption, burden was ..... 3) ccc446(sc) (4) chimajirao kanhojirao shirke & anr. vs. oriental fire & general insurance co. ltd., (2000) 6 scc622(5) veerabhadrayya r.hiremath vs. irayya a.f.basayya hiremath, 2006 (3) ccc655(karnataka) (6) baru vs. tej pal & ors., air1998allahabad 230 (7) mst.gulkandi & ors. vs. prahlad & anr., air1968rajasthan 51 (8) amar singh vs. tej ram .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... methods under s.b. civil writ petition no.10186/2011 deravar singh v/s state of rajasthan and ors. order dt:2. 7/2014 20/28 section 12 of the police act so as to encourage efficient officers who did yeomen service on anti-terrorist front or who earned laurels for the department. the impugned adhoc promotions could ..... appropriate legislations. the said directions shall be complied with by the central government, state governments or union territories, as the case may be, on or before 31-12-2006 so that the bodies afore-noted became operational on the onset of the new year. the cabinet secretary, government of india and the chief secretaries of state governments/ ..... to undertake police reforms despite directions of the hon'ble apex court of the country in the case of prakash singh & ors. vs. union of india & ors. (2006) 8 scc1 in a pil filed ten years back in 1996, which are reiterated by quoting the relevant extract from the said landmark judgement. the commitment, devotion and accountability .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... limitation for availing remedy by claiming a right of pre- emption is required to be determined in accordance with the eventualities given under section 21 of the act of 1966 read with article 97 of the limitation act. the applicant, -8- if would have approached to the civil court to claim his pre-emptory right by way of filing a ..... ?. as already stated, the plaintiff petitioner filed the suit on 20.4.2006 for possession of the suit property claiming his right of pre-emption. a suit for pre-emption -6- as per section 21 of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1966') can be filed within the limitation prescribed, that is as ..... under:- 21. special provision for limitation.-(1) subject to the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5, the period of limitation, in any case not provided for by article 97 of the firs.schedule to the limitation act, 1965 (central act 36 of 1963) for a suit to enforce the right of pre-emption under this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... examinations. in the peculiar circumstances of the case before such unending trial could get converted itself into a permanent menace, the answering respondents had to act and had acted to hold the credibility of the entire institution. the petitioner has provided for all the reasons and circumstances leading to the satisfaction of the answering ..... (2), to drop the enquiry and to dismiss the petitioner from service. the petitioner as an employee of the high court has committed serious misconduct. the act of misconduct, prima facie established, had scandalized the administration of justice in the state of rajasthan. the hon'ble judge, after a discreet enquiry conducted by ..... on your part was not proper and thus you transgressed all limits of decency, failed to maintain the dignity and respect towards the judiciary. this conduct and act of yours besides being unbecoming of an officer amounts to gross misconduct. statement of charge no.2 that you shri kalwani while posted & functioning as stated .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... & ors., by award dated 11.4.2001 had ordered girdhari lal, jora ram and united india insurance company limited to pay rs.1,11,000/- as compensation under section 167 of the motor vehicles act, 1988. on this amount, 9% (nine percent) simple annual interest was also ordered by the tribunal. appellant-claimant bhinya ram has challenged said award dated 11.4 ..... /2001 1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur order bhinya ram versus girdhari lal & ors.s.b.civil misc. appeal no.670/2001 under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 11.4.2001 passed by the judge, motor accident claims tribunal, ratangarh in civil misc. case no.38/1998. date .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... s.n. jha, dated 8th of january 2007, the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that in criminal appeal no.15 of 2006, the benefit of probation under section 4 of the probation of offenders act was extended by him to the accused-appellant in exer- cise of his bonafide judicial discretion and there was no ill-motive on his ..... that conducting enquiry against an employee was optional and the government had power to dismiss its servants at pleasure. the said provi- [30] sion was incorporated under section 25 of the act during the era of east india company. after the assumption of the government of india by the crown, this rule of english common law contin- ued unaltered ..... till 1919 when section 96-b was in- troduced by the amendment of government of in- dia act of that year. sub-sec.(1) of section 96-b of the government of india act 1919 reads as un- der: subject to the provisions of this act and of rules made thereunder, every person in the civil .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... s. mr.s.r.paliwal, for the respondent no.1. ---- by the court: the office has reported that the appeal is barred by 1057 days. an application under section 5 of the limitation act has been filed by the appellant, inter-alia with the averments that the appellant is illiterate person and reside in rustic area of village and is very poor ..... his counsel for a period of over three years.he has to thank himself for such conduct. the appeal from which the impugned judgment arises was filed in the year 2006 and therefore, it cannot be said that as the matter remained pending before the firs.appellate court for a very long time, the party lost track of the case. ..... case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. no court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condonation whatsoever .....
Tag this Judgment!