Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2009Raj109; RLW2009(4)Raj3050
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioner Smt. Vimla Vyas, having been elected as Member of the Municipal Board. Merta City and then as Chairperson of the said Municipal Board; but having been removed from the Office of Chairperson and as Member of the Board after a judicial enquiry and having also been debarred from contesting the elections for next six years, challenges such action of the State Government by way of this writ petition.2. Briefly put, the background facts and aspects of the matter are that the petitioner Smt. Vimla Vyas, after being elected as a Member of the Municipal Board, Merta City, came to be elected to the office of the Chairperson of the said Municipal Board. The petitioner was, however, put under suspension by an order made by the State Government on 15-11-2006 (Annex. 1) in contemplation of enquiry under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 ('the Act of 1959'). Aggrieved of such suspension order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009(3)WLN94
Govind Mathur, J.1. An order rejecting a petition presented by any person aggrieved with findings or sentence of any Court Martial, which has been confirmed should contain reasons for such rejection or not, is the main issue requires adjudication in this petition for writ.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner joined the Indian Army on 18.06.1984 in capacity of a Sepoy in the trade of Clerk (G/D). While serving at Station Headquarters, Bikaner as Combatant in the regular army he was tried by a General Court Martial held from 02.07.1997 to 29.09.1997. The petitioner was subjected to General Court Martial for four charges out of that he was found guilty for two and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, to be dismissed from service and to be reduced from the ranks. The findings and sentence given by the General Court Martial stood confirmed by General Officer Commanding, 24 Infantry Division on 8th Day of December, 1997 with a direction to carry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3502
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. of the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner submitted that the earlier the suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord was returned for proper presentation on 21.12.1999 against the plaintiff approached this Court and this Court remanded the matter back to the learned District Judge and the learned District judge disposing of the appeal filed by the plaintiff on 1.11.2004 directed that if valuation of the suit si reduced below Rs. 50,000/- by waiving of claim of arrears of rent by Rs. 7,000/-, the suit in question may been entertained by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the said suit originally filed on 19.8.1995 was again filed by the plaintiff waiving his claim of arrears of rent by Rs. 7000/- and thus amended suit registered on 1.11.2004 as suit No. 23/2004 - Mohan Lal v. Ram Lal was instituted in the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj1935
ORDERAs a result suit No. 216/71 filed by Achaleshwar is decreed with costs and suit No. 290/71 filed by Rajiya is dismissed with costs. The Civil Misc. application No. 13/72 is allowed and non-applicant Rajiya is held guilty under Order 39 Rule 2(3) C.P.C. for violation and breach of the injunction of Court granted on 10.7.71 and is taken in custody to undergo two months civil prison. Rajiya is further directed to restore the possession of the disputed plot to Achaleshwar.Sd/-Munsif, Bhinmal7. It may also be pertinent to mention here that just one day prior to pronouncement of the said judgment on 22.10.1974, the plaintiff Achleshwar had filed an application seeking to add the relief of possession on which order was passed by the learned trial Court on the said application itself rejecting the said application. Be that as it may, all these aspects appear to have been considered by this Court while rejecting the revision petition No. 85/1996 on 5.11.2003 - Raja Ram v. Shekhar which was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2517
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Shiv Narain, against the order dated September 18, 2007 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2007 whereby the accused respondents 2 and 3 were acquitted from the charges for the offence under Sections 498A & 304B IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner's daughter namely Vandana @ Gudiya was solemnized with Avdesh Mishra, who is accused respondent No. 2 on January 30, 2005. The petitioner had given dowry articles to the accused respondents to the best of his financial capacity but they were not satisfied with the same and they used to torture his daughter for not bringing more dowry i.e. Rs. 50;000 cash or motorcycle. The daughter of the petitioner was given beatings by the accused respondents and the they used to threat her that they would not keep her in the matrimonial home, until their demands were satisfied. After ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)223CTR(Raj)414; [2009]181TAXMAN168(Raj)
1. These references have been made at the instance of the Revenue in six assessment cases for the years ranging from 1973-74 to 1978-79. The factual and legal issues involved are identical, the same are being decided by this common order.2. The assessee-respondent filed WT returns. A notice under Section 17 of the WT Act was issued and served upon the assessee for the valuation of the Hotel Nagpal in question, against book value. The property known as Nagpal Hotel was referred to the Valuation Cell of the Department and the Valuation Officer, vide his order dt. 20th Sept., 1977, valued the interest of the assessee in the property. The WTO issued demand under Section 16(3)/17 of the WT Act vide his order dt. 26th March, 1980. The order of the WTO was challenged by way of appeal before the AAC of wealth-tax who upheld the order of the WTO. Against the appellate order, further appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted the benefit of exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2042; RLW2009(1)Raj824
Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.5.2006 by which cognizance was taken against petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 307, 365, 323, 324, 341, 427, 166, 167, 120-B IPC and Section 27, Arms Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Charanjeet Singh, husband of respondent No. 2 filed a complaint and alleged that he along with Kishan Singh was coming on 6.12.2002 in pickup vehicle, they were stopped by petitioner Balraj Singh, S.H.O. along with other police personnels, who were on spot in three vehicles. Petitioner abused him and when he requested the petitioner not to abuse him, petitioner asked other accused-persons to damage complainant's vehicle, other accused-persons damaged the complainant's vehicle and petitioner and Babu Ram be laboured to the complainant and Kishan Singh, and later on, complainant and Kishan Singh sat in their vehicle and started it, then petitioner fired on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2009Raj138; RLW2009(3)Raj1919
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These two writ petitions Nos. 4208/2004 and 3793/2004 are decided by this common order because of the reason that core question of law involved in these writ petitions are the same.3. In the trial court plaintiffs Ram Sahai, Ram Nathi and Ratani Devi filed the suit for eviction against the defendants Ram Kuwar and Chuki Devi.which is subject matter in SBCWP No. 3693/2004, whereas the same plaintiffs filed another suit against defendants Akha Ram and Chuki Devi, which is subject matter in SBCWP No. 4208/2004.4. The facts of SBCWP No. 3693/2004 will cover the fact situation of other case for the purpose of deciding the legal question raised by the petitioner.5. The above two suits were filed as stated above for eviction on the foundational fact that defendant No. 1 of each case is tenant in the premises in question and plaintiff sought relief of eviction of defendant No. 1 and impleaded Chuki Devi also as party. Chuki Devi is n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3034
Vlneet Kothari, J.1. The present second appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgment of two Courts below. The first appellate court vide judgment dtd.5.5.2006 as well as the learned trial Court vide its judgment dtd.23.1.2006 rejected objections of the present appellant Prakash Solanki S/O respondent No. 2 Mistri Achla Ram against an eviction decree in respect of suit premises; a' residential house situated at Thanvi building, Station Road, Jodhpur under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C.2. The said appellant - objector Prakash Solanki contended before the Courts below as well as before this Court through his counsel Sh. M.C. Bhoot that he was not impleaded by the respondent No. l Tek Singh who filed an eviction suit against the respondent No. 2 Achla Ram, his father despite in know of the fact that he was in possession of the suit property; a residential house and therefore, he was not bound by the decree. He further submitted that in a suit filed by the present appellant seeking injunc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj790
ORDERWHEREAS there has arisen an urgent need for the Nims University Rajasthan, Jaipur to exercise its powers and perform Its functions pursuant to Section 5 of the Nims University Rajasthan, Jaipur A ct, 2008 in respect of the admissions to the programmes of professional study being conducted by the NIMS Institutions imparting Medical and Dental Education and other allied programmes of study being conducted, by NIMS Institutions of Indian Medical Trust, Jaipur.AND WHEREAS special provisions are required to be made to enable the Nims University Rajasthan, Jaipur to remove difficulties in admitting the students to the said courses conducted by the NIMS Institutions of Indian Medical Trust, Jaipur.Now, therefore, to facilitate the functioning of the Nims University, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the Governmenfof The State of Rajasthan does hereby notify that:(1) The programmes of the studies of all the batches of Medical (M.B.B.S.), Dental (B.D.S.) and other professional courses are hereby transfer...
Tag this Judgment!