Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (2.33 seconds)
Documents citing Aman Khan vs Sheo Onkar And Ors. on 22 August, 1967

Ravi Bus Service And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 July, 2001

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Aman Khan v. Sheo Onkar (12) and Smt. Bhani v. Mahaveer Prasad (13), wherein it has been held that a Lawyer must have a proper authorisation from his client, otherwise the client cannot be held to be bound by the Court's order. There is no dispute on the issue that Mr.R.P. Dave had appeared before this Court as a Standing Counsel. Whether he had filed the Vakalatnama in the said cases or not, cannot be examined at this stage by calling the record of the earlier cases, as insisted by Mr. Maheshwari, for the reasons that whether Mr.Dave appeared after filing Vakalatnama or not, is a question of fact. The Tribunal has dealt with this issue elaborately. There was no such averment before the Tribunal nor there is any factual foundation in this regard in the writ petition nor such a ground has been taken in the petition. Mr. Maheshwari cannot be permitted to raise such a plea without laying down any factual foundation or making any averment in this respect and taking such a ground.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Bherulal vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 20 March, 1975

10. It is true that in Aman Khan's case AIR 1968 Raj 161 the Court was dealing with an application under Section 46 of the Act and the case of temporary stage carriage permits was not directly in issue. But, in my opinion, the observations made in the case as to the jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority to entertain an application for a permit apply with equal force to temporary stage carriage permits also. The previous state of law before Section 45 was amended in its present form was examined and so also the provisions of Section 63 of the Act. Their Lordships were pleased to hold that "this proviso (referring to first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 45), therefore, clearly lays down in unmistakable terms the jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority in the matter of entertaining applications." I am, therefore, of opinion that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 45 applies to, an application for a temporary stage carriage permit also and, therefore, the application in the present case for a temporary stage carriage permit should have been filed before the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur within whose region, admittedly, the major portion of the route in question lies and as a necessary corollary the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and allow the same.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bheru Lal vs The State Transport Appellate Tribunal ... on 20 March, 1975

11. It is true that in Aman Khan's case AIR 1968 Raj. 161 the Court was dealing with an application under Section 46 of the Act and the case of temporary stage carriage permits was not directly in issue. But, in my opinion, the observations made in the case to the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority to entertain an application for a permit apply with equal force to temporary state carriage permits also. The previous state of law before Section 45 was amended in its present form was examined and so also the provisions of Section 63 of the Act. Their Lordships were pleased to bold that "this proviso (referring to first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 45), therefore, clearly lays down in unmistakable terms the jurisdiction of a Regional Transport Authority in the matter of entertaining applications". I am, therefore, of opinion that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 45 applies to an application for a temporary stage carriage permit also and, therefore, the application in the present case for a temporary stage carriage permit should have been filed before the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur within whose region, admittedly, the major portion of the region in question lies and as a necessary corollary the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and allow the same.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1