Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(1)WLC433; 2001(1)WLN226
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The petitioner has prayed in this case for:(a) quashing Section 22-A of the Registration Act as inserted by, the Rajasthan Legislature;(b) quashing the Notifications Annexures 3,4,6 and 7 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.(c) directing the Sub-Registrar to register Power of Attorney dated 16.7.1999 which was presented by the petitioner on 30.7.1999.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is a resident of Bikaner City. He is the Khatedar tenant of the agricultural lands situated at Chak No. 13 KYD, Square No. 110/24, Killa No. 1 to 25 Bighas, Tehsil Khajuwala District Bikaner. The petitioner appointed one Sukhdeo Singh as Power of Attorney, authorising him to look after his lands, cultivate the lands, deposit the instalments of the land, mortgage or sell the lands, execute the sale deed thereof and get it registered. The petitioner presented the Power of Attorney dated 16.7.1999...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(1)WLC477; 1994(2)WLN637
P.K. Palli, J.1. Mahendra Kumar, petitioner, has filed this election petition agaist Bheem Raj. Elections were held on 11.11.1993. Bheem Raj respondent was declared elected from Aspur Assembly Constituency No. 136. The election has been challenged by way of this petition that the respondent had given wrong information in the nomination form with respect to his age by concealing the material fact. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent passed out the Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer in the year 1987 where his date of birth is entered as 10.8.1969. In short the entire case as projected in the petition is that the respondent was below the age of 25 years at the time of the filing of the nomination form and Under Article 173 of the Constitution of India as well as for qualifying for the membership of the State Legislature. Under Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a candidate seeking such election is not duly quali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000WLC(Raj)UC702; 2000(2)WLN128
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This second appeal was filed by the judgment debtor against whom a decree has been passed by the trial court against the order of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dt. 17.9.1992 holding that the appeal filed by him is barred by seven days and there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.3. The contention of the appellants has been that the lower Appellate Court has erred in holding the appeal to be barred by time inasmuch as it has not rightly computed the period of limitation for filing the appeal in the present case in accordance with the provisions of limitation act keeping in view Section 12 of the said Act.4. Mr. Chhangani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent urged that order rejecting appeal is barred by time is not a decree, and therefore, no appeal is maintainable. For this learned Counsel relied on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in Chhelaram v. Manak (RLW 1997 (1) 264).5. Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2295
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have initially prayed for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the. petitioners and further restraining them from taking any action to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question situated at S-l, Poultry Farm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur measuring 7000 Sq. Metres. The petitioners have also prayed for payment of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for breaking down the entry gate in question and causing mental harassment.2. On disclosure of the fact that vide order dated 4.3.2006 the lease deed dated 17.10.2005 which was duly registered on 18.10.2005, as corrected on 19.1.2006, has been cancelled and the amount of Rs. 1,93,08,001/- was also refunded vide Cheque No. 770731 and the possession was also taken and further when the petitioners refused to receive the same then the order was affixed at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2002)177CTR(Raj)595
Bhagwati Prasad, J.The petitioner is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling portland cement. The company is a registered dealer under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the RST Act) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as CST Act). 2. It is claimed by the petitioner that the Government of Rajasthan issued Notification No. F4 (72) FDGR.IV/81-18, dated 6-5-1986. By this notification, partial exemption was granted from the tax payable in respect of inter-State sales in the manner and subject to the conditions mentioned in the notification.The petitioner claims that this partial exemption from tax payable on inter-State sales is given to reduce branch/stock transfers on which no tax is leviable under CST Act.The petitioner claims that the present writ petition is not related to quantum of exemption available under the notification. The dispute circles around the sale of levy cement. The case of the petitioner is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1979Raj18
ORDERM.L. Jain, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of Quo Warranto under Article 226 of the Constitution directed mainly against respondent No. 4, Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, at present the Chief Minister of Rajasthan. The petitioner prays for some other consequential reliefs as well. In the array of respondents, the petitioner also included the Governor of the State of Rajasthan,2. The petitioner describes himself an elector registered in the Hawa Mahal Assembly Constituency of Jaipur and the General Secretary of the Pradesh Yuvak Congress Committee, Rajasthan. He alleges that the name of the respondent No. 4 stands entered in the electoral roll of the Kishanpole Assembly Constituency of Jaipur right from the year 1966 down to the year 1975-77. However, In the year 1974, he made an application on Feb. 18, 1974, before the Electoral Registration Officer of the Govindpura Constituency. District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll of the said Constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1977CriLJ684; 1976(9)WLN258
P.D. Kudal, J.1. Accused-appellant Shankariya has been convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar by his judgment dated June 27, 1975, The learned Sessions Judge has made this reference for confirmation of the sentence of death. Accused Shankariya has filed an appeal from jail against his conviction and sentence.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that First information report Ex.P/7 was lodged on September 9, 1973 at about 7.30 a.m. by one Shyam Singh son of Balla Singh, It was alleged in the First Information Report that the informant went to the Gurdwara of village Takhat Hazari at about 7. a.m. for the purpose of grooming and burning incense. When he opened the doors of the Gurdwara and entered into it, he saw Mada singh lying on a cot, and was groaning with the pain. He saw three persons lying on three different cots. He went to the village and contacted Jagirsingh, Hari Singh, Sukhdarshansingh, Amar singh, etc. He returned to the Gurdwars, with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1982WLN70
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. raises a short but interesting question about the interpretation of Section 484(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (here in after called 'the new Code').2. The facts, which have given rise to the aforesaid question, may be briefly stated, are that different plots of agricultural lands, measuring 112 bighas 7 biswas, were allotted by the Custodian Department to Khanumal alias Khiyamal, Maganmal, Chimanlal and Deepa Mal in the year 1961. In order to manage the said 112 bighas and 7 biswas land, all the aforesaid allottees appointed one Balchand Sindhi as their Power of Attorney Holder. Some time later, the Mukhtiar Aam, Balchand Sindhi, sold the said 112 bighas and 7 biswas land by means of a registered sale-deed dated September 29, 1969 to Kapoor Singh, Karnailsingh and Nihalsingh, who will here in after be described as 'party No. 2'. But Nahar Singh and Polasingh, who will here in after be described as 'party...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1982WLN195
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition raises a question as to the construction of the order passed by this Court in a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner No. 41 of 1971 - Smt. Nirmala Gehlot v. Director of Primary & Secondary Education and Ors. decided on February 20, 1975. The order in that writ petition was passed in the following terms,:In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Deputy Director (Female) Education Department, Jodhpur, dated May 15, 1970 (Ex.2) and May 27, 1970 (Ex.3) are quashed and the petitioner is also entitled to be reinstated on her post with effect from the date of the illegal termination of her services, i e. from May 15, 1970. The order for the petitioner's reinstatement with effect from May 15, 1970, has become necessary because the temporary services of the petitioner were extended by the order dated January 16, 1970 upto June 30, 1970 and she was entitled to continue on her post till such time. In the circumstances of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1982WLN321
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. High sounding, well-intentioned, radical directive of 'participation of workers in management' of Industries, an important golden relic of 42nd amendment has with stood scrapping by and scrutiny of 44th Amendment and is still enshrined as Article 43A of the Constitution. Whether this directive accepted and honoured or kept as a decoration and illumination of statute only, is a question on which legislature and, not judiciary, can adjudicate.2. The echo of this Article which was a red letter day for the workers (Kamgars) in consonance with preamble proclaiming inter alia 'Justice Social, & economic and equality of Status and Opportunity for the lowest in the ladder may now be first heard in the following historical directive of part IV:43-A. The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way, to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry.3. Cost work norms...
Tag this Judgment!