Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2010Raj86,RLW2010(2)Raj1418
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. The controversy involved in these writ petitions is identical, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The inspection report dated 20.7.09, provisional assessment order dated 31.7.09 issued by the Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited ('AWNL'), Kankroli directing the petitioners to deposit the electricity charges assessed under provisional assessment order without passing final assessment orders in terms of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act'), are impugned in each of these writ petitions.3. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the electric connections were released by the AWNL to the petitioners industrial establishments. On 20.7.09, a vigilance checking was made by the respondent No. 2 at the premises of the petitioners industrial establishments and the checking reports were prepared. As per the checking reports, the petitioners were found indulged in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All these aforementioned civil second appeals and civil revisions involve identical question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties they are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCSA No. 139/09 Ram Narayan v. Smt. Asha Devi as a leading case.2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals and revisions are that the plaintiff respondent Smt. Asha Devi filed a civil suit against firm Ram Narayan Om Prakash for eviction of the disputed premises after serving notice under Section 106 r/w Section 114(h) of the Transfer of Property Act dated 6.10.2003. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.8.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), against which, one Ram Narayan the appellant herein filed an appeal before Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short 'the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj895
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 12.10.01 passed by the District Judge, Merta in Arbitration Application No. 50/01 directing it to appoint Arbitrator on its behalf, the arbitration proceeding initiated by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in pursuant thereto and the award dated 13.12.04 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.2. In nutshell the relevant facts are that the petitioner institute which is a deemed to be university notified under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, invited the designs from Architects all over the country to develop university's new campus. After considering the various proposal received the design proposed by the respondent No. 2 M/s. Matharoo Associates was selected and accordingly, after deliberation and negotiation an agreement dated 24.5.93 was entered into with the respondent No. 2 for providing professional services for the project.3. It was agreed upon between the parties under the agree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj485
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.12.1999 passed by Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur whereby the application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act; 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondent has been allowed and the marriage solemnized between the respondent and the appellant has been dissolved by passing a decree of divorce.2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the application filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act on 1.11.1996 are that his marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 7.5.1985. Two sons were born, namely, Saptsheel and Anant on 19.11.88 and 14.11.89 respectively from the wedlock of the parties. The appellant was not happy with the marriage and from the beginning the appellant was behaving in a manner derogatory to the respondent and his family members. Inspite of the best efforts made by the respondent behaviour of the appellant did not change. The respondent complained of the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3201
ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal by the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Jaipur and Senior Medical Officer, Incharge, Upgraded Primary Health Centre, Jhadol, Dist. Udaipur has been filed against the claimants and owner of the vehicle against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer deciding the claim petition No. 388/2006 (340/2006) on 8.9.2008 in respect of an accident which took place on 18.6.2005 at 9.30 a.m. at Jhadol, Dist. Udaipur. Since the claimants were residing at Ajmer, in accordance with the provisions of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, they could file claim petition at the place of their residence besides the place where the accident took place and therefore, they preferred to file said claim petition before the learned MACT, Ajmer and the said claim petition came to be decided by the learned Tribnal on 8.9.2008 awarding a sum of Rs. 1 1,73,000/- in favour of the claimant for the death of one person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Raj)417; [2010]186TAXMAN365(Raj)
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Since bunch of cross-petitions filed by Assessees as well as by Revenue assailing orders of Settlement Commission in cases of different assessees, involve self-same issue for consideration; hence at request, were finally heard together for its disposal by this common order at admission stage. Primary question for consideration in a bunch of writ petitions preferred by Revenue and cross petitions by different assessees is with regard to applications filed before settlement commission on or before 01/06/2007 and assailing orders of Settlement Commission, on the premise that if impugned order of Settlement commission Under Section 245D(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) is held to be legally unsustainable, in such an eventuality, whether matters are to be remitted back to settlement commission to examine afresh in accordance with law or to the assessing authority in view of proceedings initiated under Chapter-XIX-A on being held to be abated in terms of Section 245HA of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009(3)WLN494
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The respondent No. 1 has filed this application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., on 02.04.2009 contending inter-alia that in the election petition, the sole ground alleged is of furnishing incomplete, wrong and suppressed information in the affidavit submitted by the respondent No. 1. It is alleged that election petition nowhere goes on to point out, as to which provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereafter to be referred to as 'the Act', or the Constitution puts an obligation for contesting candidate to furnish the records of sale and purchase of the assets, cash flow, educational qualification etc. It is then alleged, that according to Section 81 read with Section 100 of the Act, the election petition can only be filed on the grounds mentioned in the Act, the petitioner has invoked Section 100(1)(d) (i) and (iv), but it is not disclosed, as to how these Sections form a ground. Then regarding the reliance placed on violation of the voters right to k...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3364
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal was filed by the tenant Tribhuvan Dutt being aggreived of the order dated 1.4.2008 passed by the Add). District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur rejecting the application filed by the legal representatives of appellant defendant under Order 21 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 3(vii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.2. The learned trial court has passed the eviction decree by allowing civil suit No. 130/94 (Jai Narain v. Tribhuvan Dutt) on 1.12.2005. The defendant tenant preferred the appeal before the learned first appellate court namely civil appeal No. 39/2006. During the pendency of the said appeal, the defendant tenant Tribhuvan Dutt expired on 29/5/2007 and upon his death his son Om Prakash filed the said application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC on 17/7/2007 seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of late Tribhuvan Dutt namely his wife Smt. Tulsi Devi and his three sons Om Prakash, Jagdish Prakash and Jai Prakash. The pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2010)ILLJ386Raj; RLW2009(4)Raj2987; 2009(3)WLN259
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the petitioners are challenging the award of the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sriganganagar dt. 04.04.2005 passed in compensation Case No. 43/92, whereby, award of Rs. 63,920/- by way of compensation, Rs. 31,960/- by way of penalty and Rs. 19,176/- by way of interest was passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sriganganagar in favour of the claimant respondent Smt. Paramjeet Kaur.2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim was filed by the sole respondent Smt. Paramjeet Kaur Wd/o Santosh Singh, wherein, it was stated that husband of the claimant was an employee of the Punjab National Bank and was transferred to Suratgarh from his earlier place of posting at Ranauli (district Sikar). Deceased Santosh Singh was relieved from Ranauli in the after-noon of 16.10.1990 wherefrom he reported at the R.M. Office, Sriganganagar. Further, he was directed to join duty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009(3)WLN381
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. Since common question of termination of the petitioners is involved in all these aforesaid writ petitions, hence, they have been heard together and are being decided together by this common order.2. By the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the common order dt. 23.08.2008 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby individual appeals filed by the petitioners under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act of 1989') have been dismissed and termination orders of respective petitioners have been upheld on the ground that the Management has a right to close down the Institution and the State Government cannot compel the Management to run the Institution.3. The brief facts of the case, as per the writ petitions, are that the respective petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1994 in Nehru Bal Mandir,...
Tag this Judgment!