Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-20-2000
Reported in : 2001(4)WLC308; 2007(2)WLN156
..... find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no default and, therefore, the provisions of section 13(5) of the rent act were not warranted nor attracted and thus the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is quashed and the appeal is allowed.17. unfortunately, in ..... on the statutory authorities by the statute and their statutory functions could not be curtailed by any executive instructions issued by he state government or any authority. the registration act authorised the sub-registrar to refuse to register a document, if it is not properly executed or presented or the subject matter of the document lay beyond the ..... court in depositing the arrears of rent in the court instead of bank account, such deviation shall not and cannot amount to be considered as 'default' under the act.8. per contra counsel for the respondents shri p.c. jain vehemently argued that the amount is to be deposited as per the directions of the court and if .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-22-2000
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN554
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants who are legal representatives of original defendant tenant Megh Raj against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court whereby, by reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiffs suit has been decreed for eviction from the suit shop. The suit has been decreed solely on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity, by also deciding the questions of comparative hardship and partial eviction in favour of the plaintiff.2. Brief facts of the case are that it is was back on 10.8.1976 that the deceased plaintiff Bherulal had filed present suit against the deceased defendant tenant Meghraj for eviction from suit shop situated at 242, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur inter alia on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of deceased plaintiff. This suit was dismissed by the learned trial court on 28.10.1980, appeal against that decree also failed on 18.8.1983. While during pend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-25-2000
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN560
..... the suit for the defendant's eviction as soon as they came to know of it, and at any rate they would not have acted in the manner in which the plaintiffs in the present case did act.18. then in a.s. sukochana v. c. dharmalingam reported in : [1987]1scr379 the hon'ble supreme court held as under:the mere fact .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-25-2000
Reported in : 2007(2)WLN606
..... the exercise of the jurisdiction comes after the court has validly and lawfully assumed jurisdiction. if in exercise of a jurisdiction vested in it, any court acts with illegality or with material irregularity i.e. where there is a exercise of jurisdiction which the court possesses but the exercise of such jurisdiction has ..... in the court, the court acts illegally or with material irregularity which means that where there is exercise of jurisdiction which the court possesses, but the exercise has been in a manner which ..... the parties, we can safely say that the illegal assumption and non-exercise of jurisdiction have reference usually to the initial stage of a case. but acting illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction comes after the court has validly assumed jurisdiction. if after assuming such a jurisdiction which is vested .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-09-2000
Reported in : 2001(1)WLC119; 2001(1)WLN171
ORDERBalia, J.1. In this appeal, a valiant effort has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant for persuading us to refer the issue about the validity of the Rule 15(2) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules of 1969') read with definition of the Court under Rule 3(d) of the Rules.(2). The question had arisen because of the eligibility criterion prescribed for direct recruitment under the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service in the Advertisement dated 28.10.99 to the extent it prescribes the following eligibility criterion:^^ 4- ;ksX;rk,a % lsok esa lh/khHkorhZ ds fy, vH;kFkhZ%1 Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks] ,oa2 vf/koDrk gks] ftlusjktLFkku] mPp U;k;ky; ;k mlds v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa esa U;wure 7 o'kZ vof/krd odkyr gh gksA**(3). Translated into English, it means an Advocate who has practised in Rajasthan High Court or any courts subordinate thereto for a minimum period of 7 years is eligible for recruitment. The rule prescribing eligibility und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-11-2000
Reported in : 2001(1)WLC651; 2001(1)WLN699
ORDERMadan, J. (1) This civil revision pelilion arises out of an order passed by the Additional Dislrict Judge, Kekri (Ajmer) in civil appeal No.31/92 allowing application of Gopal Lal (Opposite Party No. 9/3), under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC holding him as necessary party to the appeal as one of legal rep res enta lives of deceased Chandra Prakash, being adopted son.(2). Admitted facls, briefly stated are that Civil Suit No. 20/81. Suraj Devi vs. Ramdayal & Others instituted for eviction on the grounds of default and bonafide need was decreed by the trial court against the present petitioners (tenants/ defendants) by judgment and decree dated 7.2.81, against which an appeal was preferred by Ramdayal (tenant). During the pendency of the appeal, one of the respondents (plaintiff) namely Chandra Prakash had died on 11.9.1986 and as such on the application of the appellants (present petitioners), his widow & daughter were brought as legal representatives of deceased (respondent) Chandra Prak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-20-2000
Reported in : 2001(1)WLN705
ORDERVerma, J.1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.2.2000 in Ihe civil suit No. 45/99 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the application of plaintiff for amendment in plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed mainly on the ground that the amendment will amounl to inconsistent plea, nor it would be relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in suit and that Ihe amendment will change the nature of the suit.(2). Counsel for petitioner submits that in the facls mentioned in the plaint in regard to dispute aboul Ihe property neiiher it. changes the nature of the suit, nor it is inconsistent with the pleading or ai the mosl even the amendment is allowed it will amounl to alternative plea.(3). The facts of Ihe case, as staled in Ihe order, are that the suit was filed by plaintiff for cancellation of sale deed dated 1.5.98 and to deliver Ihe possession of the properly in dispute. The suit wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-20-2000
Reported in : AIR2001Raj117; 2001(1)WLC648; 2001(1)WLN288
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Petitioner -- Suman Kumari is a daughter of Shri Mehtab Singh, who-is Sub-Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force. She is from O.B.C. caste of Jat. She has passed her Senior Higher Secondary Examination and secured 80% marks from the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi.2. P.M.T./P.V.T. examination for admission in various Medical Colleges of the State for the year 2000 was held between 25-5-2000 to 27-5-2000. Last date for submitting the form was 18-3-2000. She has applied for the same by filling up the form. The photo stat copy of the same is produced by the respondent No. 3 along with his reply at Annex. R/1. Results were declared on 22-7-2000. Cut off marks for the candidates from O.B.C. category was 805. Mark sheet received by the petitioner shows that she has secured 733 marks. She was not considered as a successful candidate considering her case from O.B.C. category. However, the marks for the Para Military Force category was 667 marks. Mehta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-24-2000
Reported in : 2001(1)WLC293; 2001(1)WLN652
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Johari, advocate for the petitioner.(2). This writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 15.4.98 Annex.4 and to quash the same. There are other consequential prayers also.(3). The contention of the writ petitioner is that the Tribunal has committed an error by holding that penalty is not leviable because that stand of the Firm M/s Leeladhar Biyani and Sons, has been accepted by regular Assessing Authority while passing the regular assessment order and that anything substantially involved in the provisional assessment order carries its own weightage and the passing of any regular assessment order whether on the same terms or on different terms cannot wash away the substantial aspects already involved in the provisional assessment order made by the Anti Evasion Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department.(4). We are unable to accept the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.(5). We have pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-25-2000
Reported in : 2001(3)WLN275
..... errors must therefore fail.'(27). in m.r. gopalakrishnan vs. thachady prabhakaran (32), the hon'blc supreme court, after considering the statutory provisions of the act, observed that the rules provide adequate opportunity to a candidate, his election agent and counting agents to have a watch over the counting process before result is ..... allegation in the election petition that in furtherance of his pressure, the returning officer had asked any counting assistant to favour the returned candidate or to act against the b.j.p. candidate. in absence of such an assertion, mere alleged pressurising the returning officer by master bhanwar lal remained inconsequential for the ..... bhabhra has expressed his salisfaction towards the counting, the allegations were vague and without disclosing as which employee had commilled an illegally or irregularity or had not acted impartially. it is further not alleged as in which round, on which table which ballot has not been accepted in favour of b.j.p. candidate .....
Tag this Judgment!