Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... arbitrariness or favouritism. however, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. government is the guardian of the finances of the state. it is expected to protect the financial interest of the state. the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to ..... of acquiring the land and re- allotting it.3. that the second sale was under the authority of the collector available to him under the first proviso to section 89(1) read with condition no.(4) of the permission dated 1.5.2003 granted to indigold to purchase the concerned lands. in the absence of any of ..... state government is not desirable if there is no material placed on record to show that government has not acted in furtherance of public interest. the supreme court in rajasthan housing board & anr. v. g.s.investments and anr., (2007) 1 scc477declined to interfere with the order of housing board cancelling the auction proceedings even after acceptance of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... arbitrariness or favouritism. however, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. government is the guardian of the finances of the state. it is expected to protect the financial interest of the state. the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to ..... of acquiring the land and re- allotting it.3. that the second sale was under the authority of the collector available to him under the first proviso to section 89(1) read with condition no.(4) of the permission dated 1.5.2003 granted to indigold to purchase the concerned lands. in the absence of any of ..... state government is not desirable if there is no material placed on record to show that government has not acted in furtherance of public interest. the supreme court in rajasthan housing board & anr. v. g.s.investments and anr., (2007) 1 scc477declined to interfere with the order of housing board cancelling the auction proceedings even after acceptance of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... redressal commission, jaipur ('the state commission') were dismissed and certain directions were issued. the respondents-complainants had approached the district forum by way of complaint under section 12 of the consumer 3 protection act, 1986 ('the act') against the then urban improvement trust ('uit'). it was inter-alia claimed in the complaints that they were allotted plots of land in 'shyam nagar scheme ..... in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service; . dealing with contentions raised regarding jurisdiction under the act, hon'ble supreme .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... more than 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 has not ..... the property in question as there was no restraint order against them and transfer if any made after 21.2.2007 is subject to doctrine of lis pendens under section 52 of the transfer of property act. having heard the learned counsel, this court is of the opinion that transfer if any made during the pendency ..... rightly 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 on the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... learned counsel submitted that the minutes of the enquiry committee making recommendations for banning the admission, unless taken to be a report under section 44 (3) of the act cannot be relied upon by the state government. learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the order impugned has been issued without giving an opportunity ..... main campus operated and maintained as its constituent unit having university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. likewise, as per provisions of section 2(s) of the act, the 'study centre' is the centre to be established and maintained or recognized by the university for the purpose of advising, counselling ..... participate in regular curriculum and extra curriculum activities of the university, however, acquire their degree from the petitioner university.3. the petitioner university is a self financed university, run by kushal education trust, a trust registered under the jodhpur national university, jodhpur vs. the state of rajasthan & anr. (s.b.civil .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... petitioner was dismissed from service. against the order of dismissal an appeal under rule 23 of the rules of 1958 was filed by the petitioner to the secretary, finance department, government of rajasthan on 27.11.1995 but vide communication dated 4.6.1996, the petitioner was informed by the addl. director, state insurance and provident ..... he was dismissed from service in an inquiry under rule 16 of the rajasthan civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1958 for short) and the order of dismissal of appeal dated 21.5.1996 and order of review petition dated 15.7.1997 whereby the appeal and the ..... such a requirement. it may do so by making an express provision to that affect as those contained in the administrative procedure act, 1946 of u.s.a.and the administrative decisions (judicial review) act, 1977 of australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. such an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... of resumption, which was held to be acquisition by the supreme court in thakur amar singhji & ors. v/s state of rajasthan & ors. (supra) are given in section 22 of the jagirs act of 1952. section 22(1)(a) provides that the right, title and interest of the jagirdar and every other person claiming through him shall stand resumed to the government free ..... v/s patel raghave natha & ors. (air1969sc1297, mansa ram v/s s.p.pathak & ors. (air1983sc1239 and state of 37 punjab v/s bhatinda district cooperative milk producers union ltd. ((2007) 11 scc363.40. in a recent case in joint collector ranga reddy district and anr. v/s d.narsing rao and ors. ((2015) 3 scc695, it was held that where ..... /2004 state of rajasthan & anr. v/s board of revenue & ors.5. d.b.civil writ contempt petition no.323/2007 mahant damodar dass chaila v/s jagdish prasad garg, rts prabhudas & anr.6. d.b.civil special appeal no.1048/2007 shri shanti nath ji sthan deh v/s the state of raj. & ors.7. d.b.civil special appeal no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... of resumption, which was held to be acquisition by the supreme court in thakur amar singhji & ors. v/s state of rajasthan & ors. (supra) are given in section 22 of the jagirs act of 1952. section 22(1)(a) provides that the right, title and interest of the jagirdar and every other person claiming through him shall stand resumed to the government free ..... v/s patel raghave natha & ors. (air1969sc1297, mansa ram v/s s.p.pathak & ors. (air1983sc1239 and state of 37 punjab v/s bhatinda district cooperative milk producers union ltd. ((2007) 11 scc363.40. in a recent case in joint collector ranga reddy district and anr. v/s d.narsing rao and ors. ((2015) 3 scc695, it was held that where ..... /2004 state of rajasthan & anr. v/s board of revenue & ors.5. d.b.civil writ contempt petition no.323/2007 mahant damodar dass chaila v/s jagdish prasad garg, rts prabhudas & anr.6. d.b.civil special appeal no.1048/2007 shri shanti nath ji sthan deh v/s the state of raj. & ors.7. d.b.civil special appeal no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... of resumption, which was held to be acquisition by the supreme court in thakur amar singhji & ors. v/s state of rajasthan & ors. (supra) are given in section 22 of the jagirs act of 1952. section 22(1)(a) provides that the right, title and interest of the jagirdar and every other person claiming through him shall stand resumed to the government free ..... v/s patel raghave natha & ors. (air1969sc1297, mansa ram v/s s.p.pathak & ors. (air1983sc1239 and state of 37 punjab v/s bhatinda district cooperative milk producers union ltd. ((2007) 11 scc363.40. in a recent case in joint collector ranga reddy district and anr. v/s d.narsing rao and ors. ((2015) 3 scc695, it was held that where ..... /2004 state of rajasthan & anr. v/s board of revenue & ors.5. d.b.civil writ contempt petition no.323/2007 mahant damodar dass chaila v/s jagdish prasad garg, rts prabhudas & anr.6. d.b.civil special appeal no.1048/2007 shri shanti nath ji sthan deh v/s the state of raj. & ors.7. d.b.civil special appeal no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... of resumption, which was held to be acquisition by the supreme court in thakur amar singhji & ors. v/s state of rajasthan & ors. (supra) are given in section 22 of the jagirs act of 1952. section 22(1)(a) provides that the right, title and interest of the jagirdar and every other person claiming through him shall stand resumed to the government free ..... v/s patel raghave natha & ors. (air1969sc1297, mansa ram v/s s.p.pathak & ors. (air1983sc1239 and state of 37 punjab v/s bhatinda district cooperative milk producers union ltd. ((2007) 11 scc363.40. in a recent case in joint collector ranga reddy district and anr. v/s d.narsing rao and ors. ((2015) 3 scc695, it was held that where ..... /2004 state of rajasthan & anr. v/s board of revenue & ors.5. d.b.civil writ contempt petition no.323/2007 mahant damodar dass chaila v/s jagdish prasad garg, rts prabhudas & anr.6. d.b.civil special appeal no.1048/2007 shri shanti nath ji sthan deh v/s the state of raj. & ors.7. d.b.civil special appeal no .....
Tag this Judgment!