Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(2)WLN440
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Division Bench of this court (Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Yadav and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Godara, as his lordship then was) considered the following prima facie substantial and intricate questions as of general importance in these appeals:1. Whether provision for special Appeals can be said to substitute of letters patent after enforcement of the Constitution?2. Whether Special Appeal is maintainable only against those matters which originally originate in the High Court with an avowed object to check and balance?3. Whether provision relating to life of an ordinance enshrined under Government of India Act, 1935 and thereafter under the Constitution are applicable to the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. If so, its effect in. filing Special Appeals after expiry of six months from the date of insurance of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949?4. Whether Special Appeals can be filed under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 even in those procee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(4)WLC591
Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1996 and is having its registered office at New Delhi and a brewery at Daruheda, District Rewadi in State of Harayana. In favour of the petitioner, the respondent State of Rajasthan parted with its exclusive privilege to vend in wholesale excisable articles manufactured by it in the State of Rajasthan at village Ramchan-drapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur for the financial year 1998-99, the period of which was to expire on 31st March, 1999.2. The petitioner company had commenced operation in the year 1993 and the bonded warehouse was also established in Rajasthan in 1993. The petitioner had continued its operations under the licence until 1996. Thereafter, State of Harayana had imposed prohibition in that State. As a result, the manufacturing activities of the petitioner stood closed. However, when the State of Haryana revoked the prohibition in April, 1998, the petitioner restarted its manufacturing process and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLN186
Mr. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These two writ petitions are raising common issue of law, and therefore, the same are being heard and decided together.3. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1554/1991 a suit was filed by respondent No. 1 to 3 and heirs of Chand Singh respondent No. 4 to 8 against the petitioners Dara Singh and Indar Singh for partition of agricultural property held by one Sundar Singh. Petitioners as well as respondent No. 1 to 3 and Chandan Singh were the sons of Sundar Singh. Sundar Singh is alleged to have executed a will in favour of the petitioners bequeathing his entire agricultural land admeasuring about 48 Bighas in favour of the petitioners. The plaintiffs respondents have challenged the authority of Sundar Singh to 'execute will and divert the ordinary rule of intestate succession. Ultimately, the Board of Revenue while affirming the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority has held that the property in question was self acquired property ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLC391; 2002(5)WLN136
Madan, J.1. Maharao Brij Singh, Ex-Ruler of Kota has sought a writ of certiorari in this petition for : (1) quashing & setting aside an order dated 26.12.96 (Annex.22); (2) holding (a) survey done by the defence authority and (b) declaration of land being short fall area & Sawai Chak, as void and unconstitutional; and further sought a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to (i) refund a sum of Rs. 14,13,127/- (already deducted) plus Rs. 1,50,330/- (deposited by him) and (ii) to pay admitted recurring compensation amount without any deduction in respect of a requisitioned land situated at Umaid Bhawan Palace Kota recognised as official residence of the petitioner.2. Reducing chequered history of facts having been complexed, only facts relevant for the controversy are epitomised in a concise manner. Total campus area of official residence of the petitioner- Umaid Bhawan Palace is 973 acres out of which 918.26 acres (2295 bighas & 13 biswas) were requisitioned by the Collector K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(50)BLJR2508
Madan, J.1. The appellant (defendant) has challenged the judgment & decree dated 21.8.99 of the ADJ No. 2, Ajmer who allowed respondent's civil appeal No. 1/98 by setting aside trial Court's judgment dated 15.1.96 in civil suit No. 8/91, and accordingly granted decree of eviction against the tenant (appellant.2. Facts giving rise to this second appeal briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs (respondents-landlords) instituted a civil suit seeking decree of arrears of rent due from 1.1.1990 @ Rs. 50/-per month and for eviction of the defendant (appellant) from the suit shop described in the plaint on the grounds inter alia of-(1) default in making payment of regular & monthly rent @ Rs. 50/- from 1.1.1990, (2) denial of title of landlords (plaintiffs) as to the suit shop; and (3) bona fide and reasonable need of the plaintiffs.3. In written statement, the defendants denied the averments of the plaint to the effect that the plaintiffs had purchased Khasra Nos. 2098 & 2099, Christian Ganj ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2002Raj293; 2001(1)WLC709
Ashok Parihar, J. 1. Legislative Assembly elections, including Nainwa Assembly Constituency of the Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha, were held in the month of November, 1998. As per the programme notified by the Election Commission, nomination papers were to be filed upto 3.00 P.M. of 6.11.1998. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was to takeplace on 7.11.1998. The last date for withdrawal of candidature was 9.11.1998. The election (polling) took place on 25.11.1998 and the results were declared on 28.11.1998. Respondent, Mr. Prabhulal Karsolia, was declared elected defeating his nearest rival Mr. Hari Mohan Sharma, the petitioner, by 6335 votes.2. The present election petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground of improper rejection of the nomination paper of one Mr. Mahendra Singh Gurjar. The petitioner filed his nomination paper as a candidate of the Indian National Congress, a registered and recognised political party. The respondent filed his nomination paper as a candidate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj340; RLW2004(1)Raj373; 2004(1)WLC201
ORDERB. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming that in Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986') there is a Chapter IV which deals with the Royalty Collection Contract or Excess Royalty Collection Contract. Rule 32 of this Rule provides that royalty collection contract may be given in respect of such area and such mineral as the Director may by a general or special order direct. Rule 35 of the Rules of 1986 inter alia gives a procedure for inviting tenders.2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the powers conferred under Rules 32 and 35 of the Rules of 1986, respondent No. 3 invited tenders vide tender notice dated 4-6-2003 for the purposes of granting Excess Royalty Collection Contract on minor mineral 'marble' for the areas comprising in Tehsil Banswara. Gaddi of District Banswara and Tehsil Aaspur of Dungarpur. A copy of the tender notice is produced with the writ petition as Annex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1788; 2004(4)WLC17
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated January 10, 2003 of the learned Single Judge rendered in SB Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 8191/2002 & 8184/2002, to the extent the notification dated July 10, 2002, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act'), has been upheld.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are as follows:On July 10, 2002, twenty feet wide strip of land on either side of Bhawani Singh Road between Indira Circle and Ram Bagh Circle for the purposes of widening the road was notified by the State under Section 4 of the LA Act. The Notification was published in the Official Gazette. It was also published on July 27, 2002 in two daily newspapers, having circulation in the locality. Besides, on August 29, 2002, the District Collector, Jaipur caused public notice of the substance of the Notification in the locality Pursuant to the Notification under Sect...
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 : (2004)191CTR(Raj)339; [2005]275ITR485(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 27A of the WT Act and the office has wrongly registered it as OTR Tax Ref.2. The office is directed to register it as an appeal and number it accordingly.3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in WTA No. 74/Jp/1995 for asst. yr. 1983-84 and relates to the validity of the proceedings of reassessment in pursuance of the notice dt. 23rd March, 1994 in respect of asst. yr. 1983-84.4. The facts which are found by the Tribunal and are not in dispute shows that in the first instance, the assessment for 1983-84 under the WT Act, 1957, was completed on 16th Feb., 1984 which was founded on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Seth Pussalal Mansinghka Trust for asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1982-83 in which the assessee was allowed to exercise the option about inclusion of value of immovable property in question, which was under the said trust in the hands of the appellant from asst. yr. 1982-83 o...
Tag this Judgment!