Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2009Raj178; RLW2009(3)Raj2081
ORDERDalip Singh, J.1. The questions for consideration which have been referred to the Larger Bench for decision are as follows:(1) Whether Section 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 has its overriding effect on Section 32(3)(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001;(2) Whether the suits, applications and other proceedings relating to fixation of standard or provisional rent under Sections 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which have been saved by Section 32(3) (a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, will be. governed by the provisions of the Old Act of 1950, after coming into force of the New Act of 2001 or will be governed by the provisions of the New Act of 2001 as Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1950, having been impliedly repealed, by virtue of Section 29 of the New Act of 2001 as held by the Division Bench in Kamal Kishore's case (supra)?2. The background in which these questions arise are that a writ petition was filed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3588
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant tenant against the concurrent eviction decree passed by the two courts below under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. The present appellants are legal heirs of original tenant -Mahendra Rai Baxi namely; Vyomesh Chandra Baxi, his son and Smt. Dropadi Devi, his wife. The plaintiff landlord is Smt. Laxmi Devi Pungaliya. Inter alia the ground of eviction was also subletting of suit premises, a shop situated at Jalori Gate, Jodhpur to respondent No. 2 - Shri Prakash son of Shri Ishwar, partner of M/s. Apex Dry Cleaners.2. At the time of admission of present second appeal, the following three substantial questions were framed by this Court:1. Whether Sub-clause (b) of Clause (b) of Clause (vii) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 applies to a case where a suit was brought against the original tenant without terminating his tenancy under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3623
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Both these petitions, CWP No. 2529/2009 and CWP No. 2529/2009, having been filed against similar nature orders dated 18.02.2009 as passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur involving similar and akin issues have been heard together. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain these petitions; and both the petitions, being similar in nature, are taken up for disposal by this common order.2. The petitioner has filed before the Rent Tribunal separate petitions seeking eviction of the respective tenants-respondents, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The tenants have filed their reply contesting the petitions; and the petitioner has filed his rejoinder. After such filing of the pleadings, the tenants moved respective applications seeking to file supplementary replies essentially with the submissions that they had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ4161; RLW2009(3)Raj2472
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.2. A case was registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). The allegation is that while S.H.O., Police Station Bhawani Mandi was on patrolling, then he recovered 8 kg. 500 gms. opium from the petitioner. The contraband so recovered from the petitioner was thereupon sent for FSL Report and therein it gave positive tests for the presence of chief constituents of coagulated juice of opium poppy having 2.47% (two point four seven per cent) morphine. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that contents of morphine is found 2.47%, thus on the total weight of the contraband so recovered, if morphine is taken note of, then it comes to less than the commercial quantity. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.3. Learned Counsel for petitioner made a reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of E. Micheal Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2679
Vineet Kothari, J.1. The Assessee, a cement manufacturer within the State of Rajasthan has filed this revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 being aggrieved by the judgment of the Tax Board dated 23.9.2005 allowing the revenue's appeal and holding that the assessee was not entitled to avail the partial exemption from sales tax under the Notification dated 6.5.1986 for the assessment year 2001-02 because it had made some inter-state sales during the said year in question and had availed concessional rate of tax @ 6% under the later Notification dated 21.01.2000 which contained a condition No. 3 that if the assessee avails such concessional rate of tax under the Notification dated 21.1.2000, he would not avail the benefit of partial exemption from sales tax under the Notification dated 6.5.1986.2. The assessing authority had imposed additional tax on the respondent assessee for the aforesaid period by the assessment order dated 26.8.2003 in view of the ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1430; (2009)12VatReporter17
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These revision petitions have been filed by the Revenue under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) being aggrieved by the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 18/6/2067, whereby, the Tax Board decided a batch of sue appeals filed by the Assessee and another batch of six appeals filed by the Revenue. These cross appeals arose out of the order of first appellate authority - Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur dated 22/7/2006, whereby, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the levy of tax upon the assessee, whereas, set aside the levy of interest and penalty imposed by the assessing authority under Section 65 of the Act. So far as levy of tax was upheld, the assessee was aggrieved and, therefore, it preferred six appeals for six different assessment years namely A.Y.2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. As far as levy of interest and penalty is concerned, since first appellat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj552
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. This protracted Contempt Petition filed long back in June, 1998, captioned as 'Criminal Contempt', under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act', is still under adjudication as to whether disobedience of the order of this Court dt.23.06.1998 passed at 4.30 PM by the Vacation Judge of this Court at his residence in S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 340/98 (Misc. Petition No. 478/1998), amounts to Civil or Criminal Contempt.2. Before narrating the brief facts as alleged in the Contempt Petition filed on 25.06.1998, it is apparent from the body of Contempt Petition that it was titled as S.B. Criminal Contempt Petition but on 05.04.1999, when the case came up before the learned Single Judge, learned Addl. Advocate General raised an objection that the caption of the petition is 'Criminal Contempt', therefore, the matter should be heard only by the Division Bench. At this point, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that it i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2718
C.M. Totla, J.1. Respondent No. 1 plaintiffs suit for pre-emptory right bearing No. 87/84 (6/81) before the Court of District Judge, Sirohi is decreed and challenged is the decree.2. R1 is plaintiff, R2 defendant No. 1 is the purchaser, R3 the defendant No. 2 whose name because of his death is deleted vide order dated 22.10.07.3. Adjacent were the properties of P and D2 and P instituted a suit averring that (1) D2 without any notice to P, sold his-house at south of plaintiffs property - sold vide registered sale deed dated 17.1.80 and handed over possession to Dl. Claimed pre-emption averring that wall between these adjacent houses from east to west of about 46 ft. is common of joint ownership. (2) This wall constructed by the original owner of these both houses. (3) On the first floor of P's house in one room, are two ventilators of one 1.25 x 2.5 ft. and for other room is ventilator of 1.5 x 2 ft. - similarly are too Mukhiyas towards property of D2 - uninterrupted air and light to pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1469
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.1. This leave to appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, Jaipur District whereby the accused respondent Ram Gopal has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Nagar Mal Meena along with his family members were travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-16C-5680. The vehicle was being driven by respondent Ram Gopal. At about 10.00 in the night the vehicle met with an accident. It over turned after colliding with the pole as a result of which one of the passengers Hari Ram died and rest of the passengers sustained simple and grievous injuries on their person. On the basis of the complaint submitted by the complainant Nagar Mal, the police registered a case under Sections 279 and 337 which resulted in filing of challan against the respondent under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3416; RLW2009(1)Raj693
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Since, both the aforesaid criminal petitions arise out and pertain to order dated 9 January, 2009 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby, petitions filed by the revisionists under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. were dismissed, they are being disposed of by this common order,2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions succinctly stated are:That on 14 December, 2008, the students of Institute of Business and Bio-Science, Kota, came on tour and after visiting Behrod arrived at Jaipur on 15 December, 2008. Having parked the Bus way side of the road near Gandhi Nagar crossing, when the students at 10:45 p.m. were in process of crossing the road through Zebra lines to reach at restaurant situated on Tonk Road, one car of black colour, came at a fast speed rashly and negligently and caused violent hit and run accident resulting in the death of Kr. Babita Choudhary and injuries to Kumari Gauri, Kumari Maninder Kaur, Kumari ...
Tag this Judgment!