Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1977Raj89; 1976(9)WLN820
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the appointment of non-petitioner No. 3 Dr. S. Divakaran as Professor Structural Engineering, Dean Faculty of Engineering and his nomination to the Syndicate in the capacity of Dean and prays for quashing the same. It has also been prayed that the petitioner be declared entitled to be nominated to the Syndicate instead.2. The case of the petitioner as set up in the writ petition, briefly stated, is as follows:--3. The petitioner was authorised to exercise the powers of Dean of Faculty of Law by the Vice Chancellor's order dated 8-10-1974 till further orders. The petitioner alleges that this order did not meet the requirement of Statute 4 (1), and was rather made with malice and bias which the Vice Chancellor bore against him as he did not like to nominate the petitioner on the Syndicate. The petitioner further avers that under Statute 4 of the University Statute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2003]131STC176(Raj); 2003(1)WLN281
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These appeals raise common issues of interpretation of the Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Exemption Scheme, 1998/Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1998, and effect of notification dated September 30, 1999 bringing about a change in the scheme affecting the claim of sick units which are engaged in manufacturing cement but have not availed benefit of exemption from payment of tax or deferment of tax previously. Hence are heard and decided together.2. It will be appropriate that before we set out the issues requiring consideration, we notice the facts relevant to these appeals. The State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 notified a consolidated scheme extending exemption from payment of tax for certain industrial units known as the Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Exemption Scheme for Industries, 1998 (hereinafter r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2397
Goyal, J.1. All these misc. appeals under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act) have been preferred by the various tenants against the order dated 25.8, 2003 whereby learned Additional District Judge No, 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur determined the provisional rent under Section 7 of the Act.2. The landlord-respondent is the same in all these appeals and all the shops in question are located in the same building known as Saraogi Mansion, M.I. Road, Jaipur and the facts as well as law points involved in all these appeals are common, hence these appeals are being disposed of vide common judgment.3. The facts of each case in brief are as under :-C.M.A. No. 2384/2003:-Shop No. 41 of 117 sq.ft. area on ground floor was let-out on 30.11.1985 at monthly rent of Rs. 478/- including Rs, 28/- as house tax. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 585/- per month including Rs. 35/- as house tax w.e.f. 1.4.1996. The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for fixation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2097; 2004(4)WLC347
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Vide order dt. 2.3.2000, notice for final hearing was issued. Notice of the stay application was also issued. Thereafter vide order dt. 29.3.2000, after service of the respondent, the matter was ordered to be listed for final hearing on 10.4.2000. On 10.4.2000, again the matter was ordered to be listed for hearing on 18.4.2000, then arguments were heard, and vide judgment dt. 28.4.2000, the writ petition was allowed. Against that order, a D.B. Special Appeal, being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 442/2000, was filed, and vide judgment dt. 13.4.2001, the same was allowed, on the short ground, that in a absence of appearance of appellant (present respondent No. 4), at best, the writ petition ought to have been admitted, and fresh notice ought to have been issued. It was also noticed, that though Vakalatnama is said to have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it could not be placed on record, for certain reasons, which were also noticed, and therefore, the order passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj130
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. These writ petitions raise some common questions of law, so, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. i may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the above writ petitions.3. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (for short 'the RTA') by its resolution dated March 9. 1976 revised the scope of Nagaur, Sujangarh, Ladhu, Khiyala and Ladhu amalgamated route and fixed stage carriages to perform 8 return services. Again the R. T. A. increased the scope from 22:8 to 30:12 vide its resolution dated August 25, 1982. The RTA invited the applications under the vacancy of 8 stage carriage permits vide notification dated October 18, 1982 published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra Part VII, dated November 4, 1982. Against the resolution of the R. T. A. dated August 25. 1982 whereby the scope wasincreased, one of the existing operators, Shri Satya Narain son of Shri Mangharam r/o Sujangarh, Dist. Churu filed a revision petition No. 124/82 before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1981Raj133
Shrimal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 11, 1980, of learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he dismissed the injunction application, filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in civil original suit No. 16 of 1979. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts, for the decision of this appeal are that the appellant is a public limited company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The predecessor-in-interest of the Company obtained a mining lease on December 1, 1913, for a period of 30 years in the erstwhile State of Bundi with a provision for further renewal. It established a factory and commenced production of cement in the year 1917. The predecessor-in-title transferred its right, title and interest to the appellant in the year 1937. The lease was renewed for a period of 30 years on August 1, 1943. On March 17. 1969, the Controller of Mines and Leases modified the terms of the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1988Raj91; 1987(2)WLN57
ORDERSobhag Mal Jain, J.1. In this group of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the competence of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to publish under Section 57(3), the applications submitted by the various applicants in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). All the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the question raised is common to all. The routes involved are different, but the facts, except the dates of various notifications, are more or less similar and, therefore, it is not necessary to set out here the facts of each individual matter. It would be sufficient if I state the facts of one writ petition, namely, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1537/86, M/s Jamindara Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Superintendent, Government Central Press and Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region,Bikaner. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1953Raj78
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Surajmal', owner of firm Badichand Bachhraj of gratapgarh praying for a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate direction against the Rajasthan State as the case may require.2. The application in this case was made on the 6th of September, 1951. The applicant is the licensee of the Power House at Pratapgarh. He increased the rates of supply of electricity for domestic and industrial consumers from the 1st of May 1951. The Government of Rajasthan however did not approve of this increase in rates and tried to persuade the applicant to continue charging the old rates till such time as the Government appointed a rating committee. The applicant, however, refused to agree to this on the ground that this would ruin his financial condition. Thereupon, on the 29th of August, 1951, the State of Rajasthan served an order which is said to have been passed under Section 33 of the Rajasthan Public Security Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2005(104)FLR315]; (2005)ILLJ842Raj; RLW2004(4)Raj2579; 2004(4)WLC165
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner, which is a Public Limited Company, has filed this writ petition apart from pursuing the regular remedy provided to it under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') inter alia on the ground that the condition imposed Under/Section 75(2-B) of the the act of 1948 for availing the right of remedy against the claim laid by ESI Corporation is unreasonably onerous and renders the aggrieved party's right seeking adjudication of its application illusory. The contention is that, even if, the the Corporation raises an unreasonably high-patched demand towards contribution to be made to it by the employer in breach of principles of natural justice or which is not otherwise sustainable in law against the entrepreneur, still the aggrieved party cannot avail the right. of making application unless it deposits 50% of illegal demand with the Corporation.3. Shri N.M. Lodha, learned counsel for Union of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1980WLN22
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Dr. Krishna C. Mathur, the petitioner, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is employed as lecturer in the Department of Chemistry in the University of Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'University'). He was appointed on the said post in)July, 1963. Respondents No. 5 to 32 in this writ petition, are employed as Professors and Readers in the various departments of the University. The University has been established under the provisions of the jodhpur University Act. 1962 (hereinafter called the 'Act'. The Act has constituted various authorities, namely, Syndicate, Academic Council etc for the discharge of the various functions entrusted to them under the Act. Under, Section 16 of the Act, the Syndicate is the executive body of the. University whereas under Section 15 of the Act, the Senate is the supreme authority of the University vested with the power to review the acts of Syndicate and the Academic Council and also to exercise al...
Tag this Judgment!