Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... the matter in favour of respondent no.5 and discharged the notices. the authorised officer of the uit had thereafter issued a notice under section 90-b of the rajasthan land revenue act to original khatedars.this case was decided by the authority vide its order dated 11.9.2000. it is further stated in the reply ..... following reliefs:- (i) the pil application may kindly be allowed and; (ii) that an appropriate writ, direction and order may be issued against the respondents to act upon the recommendation of public grievances redressal committee vide annexure-5 dated 8.12.2010 and ensure access from ganganagar-hanumangarh road to ganganagar-suratgarh road (national highway15) ..... .civil writ petition (pil) no.4591/2012 om prakash bhadu & anr. versus state government & ors.date of order ::: 28.08.2014 present hon'ble the acting chief justice mr.sunil ambwani hon ble mr.justice vijay bishnoi mr.om prakash bhadu, petitioner no.1 present in person none present for respondents _____ by the court: .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... jeep was neither recovered from the possession of jagdish nor it was recovered at the instance of jagdish because no information of jagdish or ram lal under section 27 of the indian evidence act was recorded by the police before the said recovery. thus, the recovery of jeep cannot be connected with jagdish or ram lal. if we go through ..... jagdish. in the circumstances of the case, we do not put much reliance on this witness too. the accused-appellant has stated nothing special in his examination under section 313 of criminal procedure code and he has not produced any defence also, but the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and in the present case, it can ..... 2007 1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment ram lal @ ramu versus the state of raj. d.b.criminal appeal no.363/2007 under section 374(2) of criminal procedure code against the judgment dated 11.4.2007 passed by additional sessions judge (fast track) no.2, hanumangarh h.q.nohar in sessions case 18/ .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... 3/2012 and 4/2012 their respective registered offices at 12, badal textile market, pur road, bhilwara. these companies had also earlier moved the applications under section 391 of the act of 1956 being s.b.company application nos.9/2011, 8/2011 and 7/2011 respectively. by the similar nature order dated 17.11.2011, the respective ..... and liabilities of the transferor companies shall be determined as of the appointed date, and accounted appropriately in accordance with the mandate of as-14 read with section 211 (3a) of the companies act, 1956. b. particularly, any excess/shortfall of the fair value of the net assets (determined as per sub-clause (a) above) of the ..... as regards maintaining of the accounts was not referring to the compliance of the specific requirements of accounting standard, i.e., as-14 read with section 211 (3a) of the companies act. in this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to meet with such objections, clause 11 of part v as occurring .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... to the petitioner-prisoner by its order dated 20.03.2013. the learned counsel mr. kaluram bhati appearing for the prisoner concerned submits that so far the case under section 224 ipc is concerned, the petitioner-prisoner was tried in case no. 22/2013 in the court of additional chief judicial magistrate, bikaner and by the judgment and order ..... has not been unjustified in cancelling his order of release. after having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, even while finding some act of indiscretion on the part of the petitioner prisoner, we are of the view that his plea for permanent parole deserves reconsideration at this stage. it is apparent that ..... open air camp. it is submitted that if at all there has been found some slight indiscretion or short-coming in the conduct of the petitioner-prisoner, such act of indiscretion had been only after his case had been considered and he was granted permanent parole. it is submitted that for such the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... to the petitioner-prisoner by its order dated 20.03.2013. the learned counsel mr. kaluram bhati appearing for the prisoner concerned submits that so far the case under section 224 ipc is concerned, the petitioner-prisoner was tried in case no. 22/2013 in the court of additional chief judicial magistrate, bikaner and by the judgment and order ..... has not been unjustified in cancelling his order of release. after having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, even while finding some act of indiscretion on the part of the petitioner prisoner, we are of the view that his plea for permanent parole deserves reconsideration at this stage. it is apparent that ..... open air camp. it is submitted that if at all there has been found some slight indiscretion or short-coming in the conduct of the petitioner-prisoner, such act of indiscretion had been only after his case had been considered and he was granted permanent parole. it is submitted that for such the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... its concluding paragraphs of the judgment dated 29.03.2006 observed and ordered as under:- thus, prior to 1.9.1987, as per provisions of second proviso to section 17 (1) of the rrb act, 1976, so far as applicability of pay scale is concerned, it extended that such parity shall be in respect of all the matters including the allowances and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.salil trivedi, for the appellant. mr.chandra shekhar respondent no.1 present in person. ---- by the court: this second appeal under section 100 cpc is directed against judgment and decree dated 22.05.1982 passed by additional district judge, sirohi, whereby, judgment and decree dated 22.03.1978 passed by ..... contended that vide agreement dated 07.01.1958 it was admitted that the land was in possession of the plaintiff, but the possession was vacated on 26.06.1968, however, the plaintiff again trespassed on the land, therefore, proceedings were initiated for eviction of plaintiff from the land in question, the title of the plaintiff ..... the plaintiff was valid; issue no.6 which pertained to maintainability of the suit, in view of the provisions of public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) act, 1971 was decided against the appellants and issue no.7 pertaining to sufficiency of court fees was decided in favour of the defendants and plaintiff was required .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... and so on. no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an act. an enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that court thinks it unjustified. parliament and the legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed ..... & ors.8. d.b.civil writ petition no.10269/2013 raman lal solanki vs state of rajasthan & ors. 2 date of order :1. t october, 2014 present hon'ble the acting chief justice mr sunil ambwani hon'ble mr justice vijay bishnoi mr kuldeep mathur ]. mr ravindra singh ]. for the petitioners dr nupur bhati ]. mr manish patel ]. mr deepak nehra ]. mr ..... no force in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. stay petitions also stand dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs. [vijay bishnoi].,j.[sunil ambwani].,acting cj.m.asif/- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... and so on. no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an act. an enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that court thinks it unjustified. parliament and the legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed ..... & ors.8. d.b.civil writ petition no.10269/2013 raman lal solanki vs state of rajasthan & ors. 2 date of order :1. t october, 2014 present hon'ble the acting chief justice mr sunil ambwani hon'ble mr justice vijay bishnoi mr kuldeep mathur ]. mr ravindra singh ]. for the petitioners dr nupur bhati ]. mr manish patel ]. mr deepak nehra ]. mr ..... no force in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. stay petitions also stand dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs. [vijay bishnoi].,j.[sunil ambwani].,acting cj.m.asif/- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... and so on. no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an act. an enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that court thinks it unjustified. parliament and the legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed ..... & ors.8. d.b.civil writ petition no.10269/2013 raman lal solanki vs state of rajasthan & ors. 2 date of order :1. t october, 2014 present hon'ble the acting chief justice mr sunil ambwani hon'ble mr justice vijay bishnoi mr kuldeep mathur ]. mr ravindra singh ]. for the petitioners dr nupur bhati ]. mr manish patel ]. mr deepak nehra ]. mr ..... no force in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. stay petitions also stand dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs. [vijay bishnoi].,j.[sunil ambwani].,acting cj.m.asif/- .....
Tag this Judgment!