Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)153
K.D. Sharma, C.J.1. This is an application in revision, filed by Ugamsingh petitioner, against the order of the learned District Magistrate, , Bikaner dated January 31,1983, by which the petitioner was directed to remove himself out side the District of Bikaner for a period of six months commencing from 1.2.1983 under Sub-section (3), Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act,) and to desist from entering the district of Bikaner until the expiry of the said period.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition may briefly be stated as follows:-A complaint under Section 3 of the Act was filed by the Superintentdent of Police through the Station House Officer, Kote-gate, Bikaner against the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Bikaner on August 30, 1979. It was alleged in the complaint that Ugamingh petitioner is a resident of Rani-Bazar, Bikaner and is a Goonda, whose activities are causing alarm, danger...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN698
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City dated 1st September, 1962, confirming the order parsed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, dated 12th May, 1981.2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the piaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-petitioners from a shop situated at Bassi Sitarampura, Jhotwara Road Jaipur. The shop was let out to the petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The grounds on which ejectment was sought were default in payment of rent for more than six months and reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff Nathu Lal. The petitioners filed a written statement and contested the suit and denied all the allegations made in the plaint. As regards the default in the payment of rent, it was submitted that the rent was paid to Gulab Chand father of the non-petitioners and the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1983]54STC284(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner, M/s. Kota Box Manufacturing Co., is a registered partnership firm and is carrying on business to manufacture cartons, etc., at Kota. The petitioner-company is a dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The case of the petitioner is that it manufactures cartons, box, cones, made of paper, which are used for packing the goods. Craft paper is used for the manufacture of cartons and box. Paper rolls are nothing but craft paper exclusively used for packing purposes. Pigeon partition sets, disc, rings are also packing materials and form part and parcel of the cartons. The cartons manufactured by the petitioner are used for packing nylon, polyester yarn, wound on cones, cheese and bobbin for sale and delivery to the customers. In a carton craft paper bitumnised packing material, pigeon partition set, disc, ring-top, bottom and side-liner are used.....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)220
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Appellant Sapala has filed this appeal, from jail, against the judgment dated 27th March 1977 passed by the Sessions Judge Banswara in Sessions Trial 27/1977. In the sessions case aforesaid, the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of one Jaokha and was charged with offences Under Sections 302 and 379 LP.C. The Sessions Judge, by his judgment aforesaid, convicted the appellant of both the offences and he has sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 200/- Under Section 302 IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months Under Section 379 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20th April 1977 at 7.30 a.m. one Pahadsingh (P.W. 1) lodged a report (Ex P. l) at police station Kushalgarh wherein it was stated that at about 7 a.m. the informant was informed by one Kheema that the dead body of a man was lying in his field and thereupon he went to his field and found the dead bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)496
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. M/s. Bikaner Gypsum Ltd., Udaipur (hereinafter referred as 'the Company') is engaged in mining business and owns a rock phosphate mines at Jamer Kotra in Udaipur district in the State of Rajasthan. The Company is also running a canteen at the mines for the benefit of its workmen employed at the mines. The work of canteen was earlier supervised by two Supervisors but the canteen was not functioning satisfactorily. On November 27, 1971, the Company employed respondent No. 2 Mahesh Chandra Sharma on a newly created post of Canteen In-charge on a 'purely temporary basis' for a period of 6 months with effect from December 1, 1971, to look after the Company's canteen at Jamer Kotra. The appointment of respondent No. 2 was made on the condition that on the expiry of the period of 6 months his temporary appointment shall automatically stand terminated. According to the Company, the post of Canteen In-charge was created on an experimental basis with a view to improve t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN130
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The petitioner, a resident of village Kishangarh Renwal, Tehsil Sambhar, District Jaipur, has filed this writ petition challenging the notification dated October 4, 1971 and September 15, 1978, by which the State Government has declared Kishangarh Renwal Panchayat Circle as a Municipality. According to the petitioner Gram-Panchayat Kishangarh Renwal was constituted in the year, 1956. The Gram Panchayat comprised of three revenue villages, viz., (1) Kishangarh Renwal (2) Moondli Ranjitpura and (3) Dhondhia Ram Singhpura. The revenue village Kishangarh Renwal comprised of the following dhanis. Their approximate from village Kishangarh Renwal is also given against each as follows:(1) Hathipura 4 miles(2) Ramgodiyon-ki-dhani 7 1/2 miles(3) Sodhiwali dhani 7 1/2 miles2. Revenue village Dhudhia Ramsinghpura compirsed of the following dhanis and their approximate distances are given as under:(4) Ahiron-ki-dhani 7 1/2 miles(5) Baiji-wali dhani 7 1/2 miles(6) Ramsinghpura 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN713
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged by means of this writ petition the order passed by the Principal, Government College, Banner dated June 30, 1972 dismissing the petitioner from Government service.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially employed as a class IV employee in the office of the Collector, Barmer on November 4, 1966. The service of the petitioner was subsequently transferred on his own request to the Government College, Barmer, by the order of the Collector, Barmer dated March 7, 1976. Later on, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of class IV employee by order dated May 5, 1568 with effect from March, 1, 1965. While the petitioner was working as class IV employee at the Government College, Banner, a complaint was received against him to the effect that he suppressing the information that be was apprehended at Luni Railway Junction for carrying opium on March 11, 1960 and in that case he was convicted by the Court of the Railwa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1984Raj50
G.M. Lodha, J. 1. This special appeal has been filed by the defendants, who are tenants, against the judgment ofthe learned single Judge of this Court in civil first appeal No. 73/82. 2. Learned District Judge, Jaipur, City Jaipur passed a decree of eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The defendants contested the suit and six issues were framed. Evidence was recorded by the trial court and after recording of the evidence the trial court in a detailed judgment held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that they required the premises for their reasonable and bona fide need. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned District Judge, first appeal was filed before this Court. According to the proceedings before the learned single Judge, the appeal was taken up for consideration on 2nd July, 82. On this date the court further directed that the execution would remain sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1985]156ITR377(Raj)
1. The petitioner-company in this writ petition has challenged the notice issued by the ITO under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('the Act'), and made the following prayer;'It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue; (a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and/or otherwise quashing the notice dated October 31, 1972 ;(b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition and/or otherwise directing the respondent not to act under or in pursuance of the said notice, Ex. 2, or modify the earlier assessment dated December 31, 1971;(c) a writ, order or direction which be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Costs of the petition be allowed.' 2. The notice dated October 31, 1972, reads as under :'NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154/155 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ToM/s. Jaipur Udyog Ltd.Sawaimadhopur.The assessment order under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 1967-68, made on 31-12-1971, requires to be amended as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN114
G.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has alleged that on 20.4.1981 Public Analyst Bharatpur analysed sample of 'Mithai' alleged to have been collected from accused Babulal and given to him by the Food Inspector for analysis. According to the report of the Public Analyst it contained Sachharin, and the sample was found adulterated under Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On the report of the Fcod Inspector, Bharatpur, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bharatpur on 20.6.82 after his satisfaction granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 49(1)(2)(3) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Thereafter a complaint was lodged in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of aforesaid sanction. The petitioner made an application for sending the sample to Director, Central Food Laboratory Gaziabad, The report of Director, Central Food Laboratory did not tally with the report...
Tag this Judgment!