Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: sashastra seema bal act 2007 section 40 offences relating to force court Court: rajasthan Page 6 of about 745 results (1.451 seconds)

Mrigendra Singh Vs. Sohan Raj and Ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... representation of son of the present petitioner, viz. jorawar singh s/o mrigendra singh, a minor by which some proceedings under section 83 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956, were sought to be initiated at the instance of the revenue minister against the petitioner and the petitioner in that writ petition being the purchaser of the ..... in making such a frivolous & collusive representation directly to the hon'ble revenue minister at the instance of a minor. since no limitation under section 83 of the act has been provided as such, the settled legal position in this regard is that where no such limitation is prescribed, such powers can be invoked only within a ..... herein) allowed the writ petition filed by one of the purchasers of the land in question, also found that proceedings under section 83 of the rajasthan land revenue act sought to be initiated by the then revenue minister at the instance of the minor son (jorawar singh) of the plaintiff- mrigendra singh, were not sustainable and .....

Hari Singh Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : [2004(101)FLR124]; RLW2004(1)Raj466; 2004(1)WLC682

..... material collected during investigation inquiry.9. since in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under the provisions of prevention of corruption act and sanction to prosecute him has been accorded by the state government, it is not a fit case where suspension order warrants interference.10. accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed ..... the competent authority who can always review its order of suspension as it is an inherent power conferred upon him by the provisions of article 21 of the general clauses act, 1897 and while exercising such a power, the authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order, if satisfied that the criminal case would be concluded .....

Dr. Ramji Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2002(2)WLC83; 2002(4)WLN421

..... examination. the states reduced the minimum qualifying marks for reserved category candidates (sc, st and other back ward classes) appearing in the entrance examination. the government orders, ordinance and the act concerned were under challenge before the apex court.13. the questions that arises at this juncture is as to whether the state is justified in relaxing entry requirement for in ..... '2000 regulations') were made by the medical council of india (for short mci) in exercise of powers conferred under section 33 read with section l9a of the india medical council act, 1956 and on their publication in the gazette of india on october 7, 2000 they came into force. regulation 9 provides that students for postgraduate medical courses shall be selected .....

M/S Alpha (India ) and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

..... india. we have considered aforesaid argument also. before appreciating the argument of the petitioners, it is necessary to refer the objects for which the sebi act was enacted. it provides establishment of board to protect interest of the investors in securities and to promote development and to regulate the security market and ..... are passed by the courts, tribunals and quasi judicial authorities while exercising their inherent powers. in this case, such powers are contained in the sebi act itself. thus, mere passing of ex-parte interim order during pendency of the proceedings cannot mean elimination of principles of natural justice. the petitioners would be ..... failed to raise their objections before the board within the stipulated period and straightway approached this court. second proviso to section 11(4) of the sebi act does not eliminate principles of natural justice, rather it provides for an opportunity of hearing to the intermediaries or persons concerned. in the light of aforesaid .....

Pukhraj Banjara Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Sakhawat Ali and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Jheema Choudhary and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Ganpat Singh Deval and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Ganga Vishan and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....

Raju Gehlot Vs. State of Raj. and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the 45 doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.17. this court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (scc pp.546-47, para33) " it is ..... said that the notification dated 03.04.2013 is wrongly made applicable retrospectively. with regard to legislative competence it is submitted that section 15 of the act of 1957 clearly provides power to the state government to prescribe method for deciding applications for allotment of mineral mines. the applicants have filed applications ..... notification dated 03.04.2013 is beyond the legislative competence of the state government because under section 15 of the mines & minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957 no such power is left with the state government to provide such provision for rejection of application. learned counsel mr. rajesh joshi invited attention .....