Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... as we have already noted, section 47-a being local amendment, made by each state legislature did not find any such statutory basis. like a.p. act,tamil nadu act is also referable to transactions intra vivos and not as general guidelines. if they are based on evidence inter partes it would be consistent with section 47- ..... 1 kb at pp. 206,207:16. wherever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, act in excess of their legal authority, they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the king s bench division exercised in these writs. . 29. no less ..... of federal sovereign and an off spring of political necessity .. the relevant laws of compulsory acquisition of land, including the provisions contained in this behalf under the act of 1956 emanate from the principle of eminent domain. in the case of building and civil engineering holidays scheme management vs. post officem, (1966) 1 qb247while .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute the offence and then either grant or refuse to grant sanction. the grant of sanction, therefore, being administrative 10 act the need to provide an opportunity of hearing to the accused before according sanction does not arise. the high court, therefore, was clearly in error ..... petitioner was placed under suspension when prosecution sanction was granted by the competent authority for the alleged offence committed by the petitioner under the prevention of corruption act, therefore, the jurisdiction exercised by the competent authority under rule 13 of the rajasthan civil services (cca) rules, 1958 is not in contravention of any ..... and that makes the sanction so granted bad. per contra, learned counsel for the state submits that as per section 19 of the prevention of corruption act and section 197, cr.p.c. before filing any challan after investigation against public servant, it is necessary to obtain the prosecution sanction, therefore, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... is of the opinion that though the said applicants, namely; mohanlal sukhadia university, udaipur, for whose benefit land in question was acquired under the provisions of rajasthan land acquisition act vide notification under section 4 dated 3/10/1981, mr. vivek vyas, mr. bhuvnesh maheshari & mr. suresh mal mehta are not necessary parties in the present writ petition ..... by issuing notice under section 4(1) of the rajasthan land sbcwp no. 342/2013 raj kumar vs. state & ors. order dt:26. 2/2013 4/20 acquisition act, 1953 on 3/10/2081. the said land acquisition was challenged before this court in sbcwp no. 5103/1994 by ashok kumar mehta & ors and that batch of writ ..... exists and he submitted that since the learned single judge of this court had quashed the notifications under section 6 and 17 of the land acquisition act and notification under section 4 of the act has also, therefore, became otiose, the original khatedar of the land in question i.e. ex-ruler of udaipur had rightly given power of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... , district chittorgarh, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent amiruddin and his wife smt. hasmat (since deceased) under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963 ('the act') was partly decreed and the petitioners herein were directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs; the relief seeking mesne profit was ..... after hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that in view of legal presumption contained in section 47 of the indian registration act, 1908 ('the registration act') a presumption does arise that possession was handed over to the plaintiffs on 26.07.1980 and as presumption was drawn that possession was handed ..... dispossessed from the suit property; rest of the issues, which essentially were not relevant for the purpose of decision of the suit under section 6 of the act, were also decided by the trial court and, consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed. it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... , sub-rule 1a of order xxiii also does not provide for starting point of limitation on transposition. the reason is not far to seek. section 21 of the limitation act, 1963 reads thus: 21. effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant. - (1) where after the institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or, defendant ..... the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (5) subject to the provisions of the indian limitation act, 1877 (15 of 1877).section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. ..... any reason for the transposition; the transposition would be apparently barred by limitation and the said application has been filed merely to over come rigour of the limitation act. i have considered the rival submissions. apparently, the provision relating to transposition of a respondent as appellant is envisaged only by provisions of rule 1a of order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... is not unusual. once the assembly has not been found unlawful ., the conviction with the aid of section 149 indian penal code is not sustainable, thus, individual acts of the appellants required significance. we have examined the case of accused-appellants rama, jiva, babu, valji, nana, bharat, kanna in the light of the evidence available ..... corroborates with the medical evidence. both the injuries of right leg were found simple in nature as such, participation of this accused in the assembly and alleged act of causing simple injuries on right leg by sword to deceased have been established. so far as accused-appellant no.3 rama bhagora is concerned, kantilal (pw ..... cause death of khaturam in ordinary cours.of nature, as such, participation of this accused in the assembly that attacked the victim is established and participation of act of causing injury to deceased has also been established. so far as accused-appellant no.2 ashok is concerned, all the eye witnesses except kaluram (pw-7 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... prosecution, as it is, then too the offence commissioned by the accused appellant do not constitute an offence punishable under section 302 indian penal code. according to learned counsel the act of the accused appellant at the most that may come within the purview of the offence punishable under section 304 part-ii indian penal code.heard counsel for the appellant ..... quite unambiguous terms discloses that accused kheta ram as a matter of fact was not having any intention to kill mool singh, but he gave "aadia" blow as an spontaneous act after getting jagannath hurt by tractor. the intention to cause death in the instant case is conspicuously absent. as a matter of fact on basis of the evidence available it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: O R D E R :: (1) Narpat Lal The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10144/2010.Vs.(2) Sangeeta GehlotThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10143/2010.Vs.(3) Vimla DeviThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10145/2010.Vs.Date of Order::::11thOctober 2011.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, G.C., for the respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: O R D E R :: (1) Narpat Lal The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10144/2010.Vs.(2) Sangeeta GehlotThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10143/2010.Vs.(3) Vimla DeviThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10145/2010.Vs.Date of Order::::11thOctober 2011.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, G.C., for the respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: O R D E R :: (1) Narpat Lal The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10144/2010.Vs.(2) Sangeeta GehlotThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10143/2010.Vs.(3) Vimla DeviThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10145/2010.Vs.Date of Order::::11thOctober 2011.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, G.C., for the respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!