Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: May 9 To May 15, 2022

Nominal IndexRaju Singh v. Twinkle Kanwar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 160Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samiti & Anr v. Gajanand Sharma & Ors. with other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 161State Of Rajasthan & Anr. v. M/s. Godhara Construction Company 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 162Mumtaz Mohd. V District Collector Pali and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 163Judgments/ Orders of the Week 1. Divorce| Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Family Court's Order Refusing To Waive 6 Months Cooling-Off Period In Absence Of Documentary Evidence Case Title: Raju Singh v. Twinkle Kanwar Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 160 The Rajasthan High Court observed that a family court had committed illegality in rejecting the divorce application of the parties for waiving cooling-off six months' period in the absence of any documentary evidence, especially when the parties have already stated on oath through affidavit that both of them are living separately since July, 2018. Notably, a joint application was filed by the parties before the Family court for waving six months' cooling-off period as provided under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 on 26.04.2022, however, the Family court rejected the same while observing that the parties have failed to produce documents to prove the fact that both of them are living separately since July, 2018. Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order passed by the Family Court, observed, "In the present case, when the parties have already stated on oath through affidavit that both of them are living separately since July, 2018, the court below has committed illegality in rejecting the application of the parties for waiving cooling-off six months' period in the absence of any documentary evidence." 2. Prior Approval Of Education Director Not Necessary For Disciplinary Action Against Employee Of Unaided Recognized Educational Institution: Rajasthan HC Case Title: Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samiti & Anr v. Gajanand Sharma & Ors. with other connected matter Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 161 The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that prior approval of the Director of Education is not necessary before taking disciplinary action against an employee of Unaided Recognized Educational Institutions. In this regard, reliance was placed on the High Court's judgment in Central Academy Society Vs. Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutional Tribunal [2010(3) WLC 21] as well as the decision of Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka [2002 (8) SCC 481]. A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while allowing the appeal, observed, "Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we see no reason to take a different view as the controversy involved in this appeal has already been put to rest by the Constitutional Bench of 11 Judges of the Hon'ble Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and the three Judges Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Central Academy Society (supra), that prior approval of the Director of Education is not necessary before taking disciplinary action against the employee of the Unaided Recognized Educational Institution." 3. Condonation Of Delay | S.5 Limitation Act Not Applicable To Proceedings U/S 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: State Of Rajasthan & Anr. v. M/s. Godhara Construction Company Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 162 The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the provision of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings contained under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while dismissing an appeal preferred by the State government observed, "In view of the discussions made above, this Court of the opinion that the application under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 filed by the appellant for setting aside the arbitral award dated 29.07.2000 was beyond the mandatory period of limitation permitted under the Act of 1996. Hence, the same could not have been entertained by taking the recourse of the provisions of the Limitation Act." The court observed that the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 empowers the court if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making application within the said period of three months to further extend the period and filing of the application for setting aside the arbitral award by 30 days but not thereafter. 4. Opportunity Of Being Heard Necessary: Rajasthan HC Asks Tehsildar To Hear The Poultry Farmer Before Ordering Him To Shift His Farm Case Title : Mumtaz Mohd. V District Collector Pali and ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 163 The Rajasthan High Court recently asked the Tahsildar to hear the poultry farmer before he decides to...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: May 9 To May 15, 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags