Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1750
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner/defendant/tenant is aggrieved against the order of the appellate court dated 26,10.2008 whereby the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement.3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for eviction under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950') in the Court situated in Merta where the said Act was applicable. During pendency of this suit No. 21/85 (28/91), a new Act - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001') was enacted and the said Act came into force with effect from 1.4.2003. In the Act of 2001, there is a provision for repeal of the Act of 1950 under Section 32 and by that provision, a liberty was given to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit within the stipulated period of time to file the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2195
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Like the Biblical story of David and Goliath, this is a case of an individual pitted against the colossal State. Having bought some properties at Pushkar, an ancient and a holy city in Rajasthan, the petitioner has been running a hotel in the name and style of 'Hotel Pushkar Palace' since 1981. There were certain legal battles fought between the petitioner and the Municipality Board ('the Board', for short), Pushkar-the respondent No. 3 before this Court. The Board lost these battles. The Board claims to have served a notice on the petitioner on 22.4.06 directing him to remove the illegal constructions/encroachments made by him, within three days. But notwithstanding the said notice, on 22.4.06 itself, the Board demolished a part of the hotel and sealed thirty-eight rooms of the hotel. When the petitioner protested against the illegal action of the Board, the Board issued yet another notice on 28.4.067 Stunned by the demolition, aggrieved by the notice dated 28.4.06,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1197
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders of rejection of No Objection vide orders dated 7/10.11.2008 which were passed after the final order passed by this Court in the writ petitions earlier filed by the present petitioners as well as other connected writ petitions on 5.11.2008.2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, they are again clubbed together and are being decided together.3. For the purpose of decision of these writ petitions, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13038/2008 Bright Future Teachers' Training College v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. are taken as the leading facts.4. The petitioner applied to the National Council for Technical Education (for short the N.C.T.E.') for grant of recognition/permission for starting B.Ed. Course of one year duration with annual intake of 100 students. On 29.4.2008, the petitioner deposited the requisite fee/charges a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)222CTR(Raj)264; RLW2009(1)Raj772; 2009[13]STR230; (2009)22VST44(Raj)
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27-6-2006, accepting the appeal of the assessee, against the Order in review dt. 7-10-2005.2. The appeal was admitted vide order dt. 25-1-2007, by framing following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances the Commissioner of Central Excise could exercise his power of revision under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the extent the order of Adjudicating Authority was found to be erroneous by him and about which no appeal lay at the instance of Revenue notwithstanding that to the extent the assessee was aggrieved, he had preferred the appeal and the order in appeal has been passed.3. The necessary facts are, that the, assessee was issued show, cause notice for short/delayed payment of service tax for the quarter ending September, December, 2000, March, June, September and December, 2001 and quarter ending March, 2002. The necessary adjudication was made vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj896; 2009(1)WLN152
Govind Mathur, J.1. The Board of Management of the' Rajasthan Janjati Kshetriya Vikas Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangh') in its meeting dated 11.1.1993 resolved as follows:foLr`r fopkj foeZ'k djkus ds i'pkr~ ;g izLrko loZ lEefr ls ikfjr fd;k x;k jkT; Lrj fofHkUu lgdkjh laLFkkvks ds fy, lsok fu;e Lohd`r gksus rd jkT; la?k deZpkjh;ks ij jkT; lsok fu;e ykxw j[ks tkus ds fu.kZ; dk vuqeksnu fd;k tkrk gS ,oa jkT;la?k ds deZpkjh;ks ds fo:) vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh ds fy, jktLFkku vlSfud lsok,Wa] oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,ao vihy fu;e] 1958 ds rgr xr o'kksZ esa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dh iqf'V ,oa Hkfo'; ds fy, mDr fu;eks dks ykxw j[kus dk vuqeksnu fd;k tkrk gSA(Hereinafter referred to as 'the resolution No.38'.)2. The resolution aforesaid is still in currency and no service rules are yet approved to regulate service conditions of the employees of the Sangh that is a cooperative society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (now deemed to be registered under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2009Raj38; 2009(1)WLN373
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The facts in brief as pleaded by both the appellants are that both the appellants fell in love with each other and without the consent of their parent entered into wedlock on 26-8-2006 by following the rites of Arya Samaj. They could not live together for a single day (or night) as immediately after their marriage, the fact of marriage of the appellants came in knowledge of their parents and they did not accept this marriage. Because of above fact situation only, the appellants stated that the 'appellants do not want to live together nor they want to continue this marriage relation because they contacted the marriage because of their lack of understanding'. They further pleaded that not only they did not live together for a single day (or night) after marriage, but they did not meet with each other for a single moment after the marriage. With these averments, the appellants, husband and wife filed present petition before the Family Court under Section 138 of the Hin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj919
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The Rajasthan State Financial Corporation has challenged the order dated 19th Dec, 2002 passed by the court of Addl. District Judge NO.l, Chittorgarh in Misc. Application Case No.67/1995 by which the learned Civil court rejected the appellant's-applicant's application filed Under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951) on the ground of bar of limitation. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the appellant's application under Section 31 of the Act of 1951 was rejected as barred by time that too by accepting the period of limitation as 12 years from the loan amount becoming due after 12 months from the date of disbursement of loan by RFC to the borrower because, of the reason that there was condition that the loan will become due after 12 months from the date of disbursement of loan to the borrower. However, the respondents have raised yet another objection that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2251
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. An application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has been filed by the workman, respondent No. 1 with the prayer that the same may be allowed and the petitioner employer be directed to make the payment of salary last drawn by him during the pendency of the writ petition.2. The petitioner-employer has contested the aforesaid application by filing a reply to it. The primary objections raised by the petitioner is that the instant application has been moved after a lapse of about 8 years from the filing of the writ petition and therefore on the ground of delay and latches the application is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the writ petition, in which the present application has been filed, was admitted by the Court on 18.1.2001 and a stay order in the term that meanwhile operation of the award dated 9.5.2000, passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, by stayed. He has submitted that later, on 20...
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 : RLW2009(1)Raj322
ORDERThe matter comes on the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner on 26.5.2007 objecting to paras 2 to 7 and 16 of the affidavit of Moti Lal. Thereupon the Dy. Registrar (Judl.) has directed the case to be put up before the Court.The objection is raised in the back ground of the earlier order passed by thit Court on 22.9.2004, wherein it has been held that since this is a probate proceeding, and the question of title of the property Cannot be gone into, therefore, the facts relating to title of the property were found to be irrelevant, and they were found to be not capable of being taken on record.It is contended that the above paras of the affidavit do contain these very facts, which in view of the order dated 22.92004 cannot be taken on record.Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that if the property did not belong to the testator and if the probate is granted with respect to the Will, that would affect the title of the property, and therefore, the av...
Tag this Judgment!