Rajasthan Court September 1982 Judgments
The Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC13(Raj)
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. All these three writ petitions, though relating to different assessment years, raise common questions of law. They are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner, Union of India, is running railway, which is completely owned by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi. Non-petitioner No. 2 issued a notice dated 5th December, 1981, under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requiring petitioner No. 2 to appear before him and file returns. In compliance with that quarterly returns, after registration, were filed. On 21st May, 1982, the petitioner submitted a preliminary objection dated 17th May, 1982, to the assessing authority, contending that the railway could not be termed to be a dealer of scrap material. In fact the auction is an occasional feature which takes place thrice or four times in a year and as the petitioner is not a dealer of scrap material under the Act, it is not liable...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj186
Kasliwal, .J. 1. This writby the petitioners Chhaganlal and Hukam Chand under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated December 21. 1981. 2. The brief facts leading to this writ. petition are that a declaration was filed by Chhaganlal and his brother Gopal regarding their land under the ceiling proceedings. iN the said declaration ?hhaganlal had declared Hukam chand as his grandson. Gopal had also not mentioned that Hukam Chand was his adopted son. The matter went up to the Board of Revenue and the case was remanded by the Board of Revenue with the direction that the question whether Hukamchand was the adopted son of Gopal should be decided alter making enquiry in this regard. After the re-mand of the case the petitioners led oraland documentary evidence and the Assistant Collector Baran after takinginto consideration the entire evidence arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners had not proved the adoption of Hukam Cha...
Tag this Judgment!ishaq Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)543
Lodha, J.1. Ishaq Mohammed Bhati a civil servant has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:The order of punishment dated 28.5.1979 may be declared to be invalid and be quashed with all consequentail benefits to the petitioner such as salary.In the alternative and without prejudice to aforesaid, if it be considered that such an order cannot be made without the appeal and/or the review petition being decided by the Government, then the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order in appeal and direct the State Government to proceed to consider the appeal and/or review petition of the petitioner within time to-be fixed by the Hon'ble Court and then consider the validity of the order on the order being produced and given the petitioner appropriate relief.Further by an appropriate writ order or direction, even if the aforesaid reliefs are not considered due to the petitioner, then the order of punishment so far it directs that the petitioner shall not be paid the salary ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sudershan Puri and ors. Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN765
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner dated December 27, 1979, dismissing the claim petition filed by Smt. Sudershan Puri and her five sons and a daughter.2. It is not in dispute that Om Prakash Puri deceased was employed in the Central Warehouse Corporation as Junior Storage and Inspection Officer at its Warehouse at Sri Ganganagar in June, 1976 & he was drawing Rs. 880/- as salary in the scale of Rs. 650 30-740-35-880-EB-40 960 besides Rs. 337.60 as dearness allowance. On June 9, 1976, at about 4.30 P.M., while Shri Om Prakasi Puri was coming on his scooter No. R.S.K. 1506 from towards Nehru Park to Padampur Chungi Road, he met an accident at the crossing of Chungi Road near the house of Dr. Gianchand Gurhaui with bus No. R S.G. 2157, which was owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). It is alleged by by the petitioner, who are the app...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh Vs. Dhanraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN609
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. A sum of Rs. 40/- was awarded as costs to the defendant opposite party 01 February 10, 1932 as the plaintiff petitioner did not file the list of his witnesses nor his witnesses were present in the court while the case was fixed for recording his evidence on that date. On the next date fixed in the case i e. February 22, 1982 the plaintiff prayed for further time to produce his evidence and to make payment of costs. The time was allowed with consent of the learned Counsel for the defendant. Similarly, time was again allowed to the plaintiff for producing his evidence and for payment of costs on April 24. 1982. The case was then fixed for July 29, 1982 and on this date the plaintiff again asked for an adjournment but the defendant objected to it on the ground that the earlier costs had not been paid. The plaintiff was prepared to make part payment of the sum of Rs. 20/- but the learned Counsel for the defendant was not prepared to accept incomplete payment of th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Vasudev Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN653
G.M. Lodha, J.1. In these revision, petitions the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 22nd April. l982, discharging the accused Vasudev Sharma for the offences under Section 412/ 414, IPC has been challenged.2. A challan under Sections 395, 397, 402, 414 and 120B, IPC has been filed against the various accused Gulam Mustafa, Ahmed Hussain, Jahid Hussain, Abid Hussain, Abdul Latif and Vasudev Sharma.3. One Abdul Aziz filed a report in the police on 16th September, 1981 that on the night of 16th September, 1981, while he was sleeping with his wife & his children in his bed-room, the thieves came & plugged his mouth. In the room, there were six persons only, in total, out of whom, two had pistols in their hands. They then demanded the keys. A blow was inflicted on his head when he avoided giving the keys and then he was tied. After that, the accused party went away with cash, gold, silver ornaments, emerald and finished goods, after breaking...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamlal and anr. Vs. Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti, Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj133; 1982()WLN467
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 17-2-1981, passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, whereby he allowed the application under Section 13(7) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), reversing the order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, dated 23-10-1980, whereby the learned Munsif rejected the defendant's application under Section 13 (7) of the Act. The learned Civil Judge further directed that the suit shall proceed only relating to costs.2. I may briefly narrate the facts and circumstances leading to the present revision petition. The petitioners instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant from the shops on the ground of default. The suit was instituted on 14-4-1975. Summons were issued to the defendant. Thereupon the defendant appeared on 4-8-1975 and submitted an application under Section 13 (4) of the Act. The case was then adjourned to 11-8-1075. On 11-8-1075 t...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Kishan and 34 ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)303
M.C. Jain, J.1. These writ petitions raise a common question, so they are being disposed of by this common order2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the tenants of the properties managed by the 'Devasthan' Department. They have been paying rent at the agreed rate. The Assistant Commissioner. Devasthan, Jodhpur and Bikaner Divisions, Jodhpur, issued notices to the petitioners whereby he demanded payment of enhanced amount of rent and in case the enhanced amount of rent is not paid eviction proceedings will be initiated against them As the petitioners did not make payment of enhanced amount of rent, by a subsequent notice, their tenancy was terminated, It is these notices, which are under challenge in these writ petitions.3. The notices have been challenged inter alia on the ground that the respondents have no authority to enhance the rent unilaterally and the enhancement of rent is excessive.4. Counters to the writ petitions have been filed by the respondents. It is stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN676
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Shri Nand Lal Sharma alleging himself to be the President, Dakshan Block Prohibition Committee and Vice President of Rajasthan Freedom Fighters Association.2. The grounds raised in the petition are that Notifications were issued under Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Act of 1950') bringing prohibition into effect in various districts of Rajasthan as time bound phased programme. The first notification which came into force on 1st April, 1979, applied to the district Jhunjhunu, Sikar, Bhilwara, Jhalawar, Sawai Madhopur, Alwar and Bharatpur. The second notification dated 2nd October, 1979. was brought into force on 2nd October, 1979 in the districts of Chittorgarh, Ajmer and Kotaand the third Notification which came into force on 1st April, 1980 covered the districts of Ganganagar, Jaipur and Udaipur, and thus the total prohibition was imposed through out the State of...
Tag this Judgment!Chatara Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)466
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal has been filed from Jail by the appellant Chatara and it is directed against the judgement dated 12th February, 1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions case No 25/81. In the aforesaid Sessions Case, two persons, namely, the appellant, Chatara and one Gautam, were prosecuted. The appellant was charged with offences under Section 395 read with Section 397, Section 457 and Section 324 IPC Accused Gautam was charged with offences under Section 395 read with Section 397, Section 457 and Section 323 IPC. The Sessions, Judge, by his judgment aforesaid, convicted the appellant of the offences under Sections 392 and 324 and accused Gautam of the offence under Section 321 IPC. The said accused persons were acquitted of the other charges. The appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 394 IPC. He has ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›