Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2000Raj100; 1999(3)WLC203
orderj.c. verma, j.1. one shri ram dev (ram dev singh) was nominated by the bhartiya janta party (for short b.j.p.) as approved candidate for contesting the election of the member to the mundwa assembly constituency in the general elections to be held in november 1998 for the rajasthan legislative assembly. said ramdev filed his nomination paper for contesting the election as b.j.p. candidate, but unfortunately died on 12-11-1998. the election was to be held on 25-11-1998. the poll to this mundwa assembly constituency stood adjourned by the returning officer. the factum of death was notified by the returning officer to the election commissioner as was mandatorily required under section 52 of the representation of the people act (here-in-after called the act). the election commission of india after receipt of the report from the returning officer, issued notice under section 52(2) of the act on 14-11-1998 to the b.j.p. and called upon the said b.j.p. to nominate another candidate for the said poll before returning officer within seven days from the date of issue of notice. the notice as issued by the election commission is attached as annexure-2 to the writ petition. this notice was duly received by the president of the b.j.p. on 15-11-1998. it is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner hanuman singh was approved and nominated by the bjp on 16-11-1998 to be the candidate on behalf of b.j.p. for the said constituency. the communication as required under the provisions .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN52
n.m. kasliwal, j.1. in both the above writ petitions an identical question of law has been raised as such the same are disposed of by one single order. in both the above writ petitions the petitionsers have prayed that section 47 (i-r) of the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') be declared us ultra vires and violave of articles 14 and 19 of the constitution of india and the respondents be refrained from giving effect to & implement the said provisions of the act.2. the petitioners are holders of non-temporary state carriage permit on different inter state routes. a challenge has been made to the provisions of section 47(i-n) of the act which reads as under:section 47(i-n) - notwithstanding anything contained in this section, an application for stage carriage permit from a state transport under-taking for operating in any inter-state route shall be given preference over all other applications:provided that the authority shall not grant a permit under this sub-section unless it is satisfied that the state transport undertaking would be able to operate in the inter-state route without detriment to its responsibility for providing efficient and adequate road transport service in any notified area or notified route as is referred to sub-section (1) of section 68 where the undertaking operates the service.explanation - for the purpose of this sub-sections 'inter-state route' means any route lying continuously in two or more state.3. it is argued by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1970Raj145; 1970CriLJ987; 1969()WLN233
orderb.p. beri, j.1. this is an application under sections 439 and 561a of the code of criminal procedure directed against the order of the additional munsiff-magistrate no. 2, jodhpur dated the 25th of july, 1968 and upheld by the learned sessions judge, jodhpur by his order of the 15th march, 1969.2. lalchand instituted a complaint against girdharilal mahajan, administrator, municipal council, jodhpur, ramchander mathur, commissioner, municipal council, jodhpur, maghraj agrawal, health officer, municipal council, jodhpur, laxman singh panwar, sanitary inspector, hansraj, jama-dar and the municipal council, jodhpur, under sections 268, 278 and 290 of the indian penal code before the additional munsiff-magistrate no. 2, jodhpur. the complainant alleged that he runs a shop in manak chowk, jodhpur. on the other side of the road abutting his shop there is moti bai's temple. the municipal council, jodhpur gets refuse collected in front of the shop of the complainant and thereby obstructs more than half the road and renders the atmosphere noxious to the health of the public and the residents of the locality. the heaps so collected emit offensive odour to the annoyance of the public. because it blocks the passage on the road it causes common injury, danger and annoyance to the people in general and those who dwell or occupy properties in the neighbourhood in particular. the refuse is being collected every day in the hours between 7 and 8 a. m. and is left lying there upto 4 p. m. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1990Raj157; 1989(2)WLN465
k.s. lodha, j. 1. these six special appeals involve a common question, although they are based on some different facts, and therefore, they are being disposed of by a single judgment.2. it may at once be stated that the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in these cases, the schemes, which had been published under section 68-c of the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') had not been approved for a considerable long time, more than seven years in each case, and therefore, these schemes had become outdated and are liable to be quashed. in order to appreciate the contention, the dates on which the various schemes were published as draft schemes, the dates on which schemes were approved; the dates on which they were notified and implemented are given in a tabular form below along with the names of the parties and the routes concerned:mi name of the partiesname of the routedate of publication of draft schemedate of approval of the schemedate of notifica-cation of the approved scheme1.dalchanddoongarpur to modasa via mewaran inter-state route lying in state of gujarat13-4-7929-3-8513-6-852.tarachandnathdwara to chhotisadri via thamla, talana mavli, vallabhnagar, amarpura, bhiner etc.3-4-7629-5-8013-6-853.ramratan chodharychittorgarh to chhotisadri and chittorgarh to badisadri3-4-7629-5-8013-6-854.m/s. arg transportchittorgarh to banswara3-4-7629-5-8013-6-855.m/s. nandlal tarachandchittorgarh, banswara via chhotsadri13-6-8529 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2000]244ITR727(Raj)
j.c. verma, j.1. all the above mentioned seven writ petitions are being' decided together for the reason that a common question of law is involved. the facts are being taken from civil writ petition no. 2316 of 1996--rajasthan mining and engineering put. ltd. v. cit.2. section 127 of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), authorises the director-general or chief commissioner or commissioner, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after recording the reasons for doing so, to transfer any case from one or more assessing officers subordinate to him to any other assessing officer or subordinate.3. in the present case, the petitioner-company is regularly being assessed by the income-tax department at jaipur, ever since their incorporation from 1979, but the commissioner, income-tax department, jaipur, exercising powers under section 127 of the act, has vide order dated march 29, 1996/april 3, 1996, transferred the case of the petitioner to the jurisdiction of the deputy commissioner of income-tax, special range, cut-tack, orissa, without giving any reasons and without any authority or jurisdiction. the petitioner submits that the transfer order made under section 127 is per se, arbitrary, illogical, whimsical and contrary to the well-established principles of natural justice. rather it is submitted that the commissioner had transferred many other cases as well to cuttack and many of them have filed the writ petition and, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1976WLN745
p.d. kudal, j.1. this is an application by the accused applicant manohari under section 482, cr.p.c., 1973 against the order of the learned sessions judge, bharatpur dated september 13, 1976.2. the facts of the case, in brief, which are relevant for the disposal of this application, are that a case under rules 33, 43, 46 & 48 of the defence of india rules, 1971 was registered against the accused-applicant. the learned munsif and judicial magistrate, bayana released the petitioner on bail on june 28, 1976 on his furnishing a personal bond for rs. 5,000/- and a surety in the like amount. the learned public prosecutor after a lanes of about 3 months moved an application under section 439(a). cr.p.c., 1973 before the learned sessions judge, bharatpur praying that the bail granted by the learned magistrate may be cancelled. the learned sessions judge by his order dated september 13, 1976 cancelled the bail, which was granted to the petitioner by the learned magistrate. it is against this order of cancellation of the bail that the present application under section 482, cr.p.c. has been filed.3. on behalf of the accused applicant, it has been contended that there are special provisions for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail as enumerated in rule 184 of the defence of india rs. when the accused is charged with an offence punishable either under the defence of india act or the defence of india rules. it was, therefore, contended that the learned sessions judge larked inherent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(34)PTC246(Raj)
satya prakash pathak, j.1. this is a defendant's appeal against the judgment & decree dated 13.09.2005 passed by addl. district & sessions judge (fast track), rajsamand in civil original suit no. 100/2004 (miraj products pvt. ltd. v. ashish tea company and ors.) allowing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction.2. the facts leading to this case are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, infringement of copyright, passing off trademark & goodwill and rendition of accounts in the trial court with the averments that it is a limited company registered under the previsions of the companies act, 1956 having its registered office at uper ki oden, nathdwara, district rajsamand (rajasthan) and is entitled to the exclusive use ox trademark 'miraj' for the goods manufactured by it and, therefore, the defendants be restrained from using the said trademark.3. the case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint was to the effect that plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing tobacco and tea and proposed to enter in consumer eatable goods which are already specifically stated in the memorandum of association of the company in the main objects and enumerated in clause 2 & 3. it has further been stated that the plaintiff is the largest producer of lime mixed chewing tobacco in india and the plaintiff has its own production facilities. it is stated that the plaintiff started its business in the year 1987 and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN303
p.n. shinghal, j. 1. the petitioner has stated that he was employed by the director of the defence laboratory at jodhpur as a mechanic-mate on february 1, 1963, in the defence laboratory, central workshop, jodhpur. he was promoted as a mechanic on january 27, 1965, and he claims that he was senior to respondents nos 3, 4 and 5. there were two sections in the defence laboratory, namely, the central workshop and the training aids cell centre, and the petitioner has stated that due to amalgamation of these two sections, some staff was retrenched and was declared surplus. this led to the issue of order ex. 2 dated february 21, 1968 by which the petitioner among others, was given notice that his services would not be needed with effect from the afternoon of april 1, 1968. individual notices were also issued to the same effect. it was intimated that those who were desirous of alternative appointment should fill | up the prescribed form before february 24, 1968. the petitioner protested against his retrenchment, but he expressed his willingness to accept an alternative appointment in the 'same and equivalent grade'. an order was issued for his transfer as a mechanic at vrde, district avadi, but it was cancelled by order ex. 6 of march 30, 1968 and the petitioner was again informed that his services would stand terminated with effect from may 1, 1968. he was however informed that he had been posted to cod delhi cantt. as a fittermate and that he should join that post. he was informed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(3)Raj2056
ashok parihar, j.1. since on similar set of facts same prayers have been made, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. the land measuring 81 bigha 19 biswa was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1991 issued under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the act'). subsequently, notification under section 6 of the act was also issued on 27.3.1992. the land sought to be acquired for the purpose of development and expansion of industrial area for the respondent no. 3 - riico also included about 21 bigha 6 biswa land of the petitioners. after completion of the proceedings the first award was passed by the land acquisition officer on 18.4.1994 in regard to the land measuring 34 bigha 4 biswa. the award in regard to remaining land could not be passed in view of some interim orders passed by the courts thereafter, award in regard to remaining land measuring 4 bigha 10 biswa was also passed on 8.11.1995. the award dated 18.4.1994 included the land measuring 11 bigha of the petitioners, whereas, the award dated 8.11.1995 included remaining land measuring 10 bigha 6 biswa of the petitioners. challenging the entire acquisition proceedings and the awards passed above, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners on 18.7.1996 with the following prayers:(a) to quash and set aside the notification dated 4.2.1991 issued under section 4 of the act (annexure no. 1).(b) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN(UC)126
k.s. sidhu, j.1. the appellants gurubachan singh and siikishan along with one roop narain, were tried by the learned addl. sessions judge gangapur city under section 466, 467, 477a and 409 read with section 120b ipc. by his judgment dated march 19, 1974, the learned judge acquitted the accused roop narain. gurubachan singh & srikishan, respectively, were however, convicted under section 409 and 467 ipc gurubachan singh was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months. srikishan was sentenced for imprisonment for one year and a fine of rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. as already indicated both gurubachan singh and srikishan appealed from the order of conviction and sentence passed against them. srikishan died during the pendency of the appeal some time in the year 1975. none came forward to continue the appeal on his behalf. the appeal has, therefore, abated. this judgment will, therefore, deal with the appeal of gurubachan singh alone.3. the prosecution against gurubachan singh has arisen out of a complaint, ex.p. 1, made by kana pw to the sub divisional magistrate, sawai madhopur on december 26, 1968. the learned magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the sho concerned for investigation in accordance with the provisions of section 156(3) crpc. the allegations contained in the said complaint may be briefly .....
Tag this Judgment!