Rajasthan Court September 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Employees State Insurance Vs. Mehta Vegitable Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN15
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The E.S.I. Corporation has filed appeal against the Mehta Vegetables Company on a short point that the E.S.I. Court was not justified in setting aside the damages on the ground that no loss was accrued to the Corporation on account of delay in payment of contribution of the Employee State Insurance.2. Having heard Mr. Gupta for the appellant and Mr. Saxena for the respondents I am of the opinion that in charging damages for non payment or failure of payment may be on account of late payment of contribution of the Employee State Insurance. It is not permissible for the Court to insist on proof of losses which are required to the proving cases of contracts or in cases of torts. It may be mentioned that this branch of legislation for insisting on payment or deposit of contribution of Insurance for employees is a social welfare legislation where the employers are under a duty and legal mandate to pay the amount of contribution in time. It is not a commercial transacti...
Jugal Kishore Vs. Shanti Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN764
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This appeal has been filed by one of the defendants against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated November 19, 1984 granting temporary injunction against the defendants directing them not raise any construction over the property in dispute and to maintain the status quo and also not to transfer any part of the property.2. The facts giving rise to this apnea! may briefly be stated here. The plaintiff Shantimal filed a suit for per-emption in respect of the properties sold by defendant No. 1 Dr. Kan Mal on the ground that plaintiff Shantimal, Dr. Kantimal and Suraj Mal are sons of Gumanmal. Gumanmal had acquired the property described in para 1 of the plaint by foreclosure and also raised certain more construction after acquiring the property. The whole building, thus constructed is known as Bhansali Building. It is further alleged that Guman Mal gifted the suit property to his three sons in separate definite shares by registere...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Jodhpur Coffee House
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN520
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Both these appeals are disposed of by a common order as prayed by the learned Counsel for the parties. The simple reason for this prayer is that the question on which the entire debate had centered round is whether once the State Government hart issued a notification classifying the establishments in three categories for the purpose of application of the Employees State Insurance Act, it is permissible to hold that particular establishment can fall in more than once category of this notification.2. The precise question to make it more clear is that whether a case of restaurant which normally covered by Clause (iii) in terms speaks about hotel and restaurants can also be coveted by Clause (i) and (ii) of this notification. Mr. Maloo and Mr. Jain appearing for the two restaurants Proprietors have argued that once the State Government has classified the establishments in the three categories and so far as restaurants are concerned, categorised them in Clause (iii) an...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Universal Supply Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN577
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. These three appeal 52/1979, 58/1979, 64/1979 E.S.I. v. M/s Universal Supply raise a common question of law. In all these cases the E.S.I. Court has refused to allow the Corporation damages on the ground that the payment of the contribution was not a made in time.2. Mr. Gupta's contention is that delayed payments and therefore the E.S.I. Corporation is entitled to charge damages under Section 85B of the Act. Mr. Saxena does not dispute this proposition of law but according to him merely late submission of the contribution card would not be analogous to delay in payment of the contribution.3. Mr. Saxena submits that it was for the E.S.F. Corporation to prove (hat the contribution was not paid in time and merely proof of the fact that the contribution cards were submitted late is not enough because payment may be made earlier and cards may be submitted later on. Yet another submission of Mr. Sexena is that proviso to Regulation 31(A) came into force on 21-11-1977 pre...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Raj)30; [1987]167ITR129(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Both the above reference applications are disposed of by one single order as they relate to two different assessment years 1971-72 and 1975-76, but common question of law is involved in both these applications.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, has filed these applicationsunder Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act',hereinafter), for giving direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal,Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following question of law for theopinion of this court: ,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that no error, much less an error which is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, has been established by the Revenue and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in having exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act ?'3. Brief facts of the case are that the Commissioner of Income-tax passed an order und...
Nahgi Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Raj)109; [1987]167ITR139(Raj)
P.C. Jain, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion, pertaining to the assessment year 1971-72, at the instance of the assessee:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that payments in sums exceeding Rs. 2,500 made for the purchase of the commodities are hit by the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that, therefore, such payments should be added to the total income of the assessee in terms of the aforesaid sub-section ?'2. The facts which are admitted and/or have been found by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), are stated hereinafter:3. The applicant is a firm. The assessee deals in agricultural commodities at Kota. During the accounting year 1971-72, which ended on Diwali,...
Divisional Railway Manager, W.R. Vs. Smt. Shamsadi W/O Alimuddin
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN320
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Bharatpur dated 30-9-1980, in a workmen case No. 22 of 1977 whereby he awarded Rs. 19,200/- as compensation and Rs. 300/- as costs of the respondents.2. Alimuddin deceased was on duty 6-7-1976 at 9 a. m. his finger was bitten by a scorpion. He was sent to Railway Hospital Bayana on 9-7-1976 for treatment. He was sent to Railway Hospital Kota on 16-7-1986 for treatment, He was operated in Maharao Bhim Singh Hospital, Kota on 23-7-1976 where it was detected that he was suffering from tetanus. Alimuddin died on 26-9-1976 at 3.30 p. m. The compensation commissioner has allowed compensation but the Railway has filed this appeal.3. Mr. Bafna's is submission is that the death was due to tetanus and not scorpion bite, I am unable to accept this contention. The scorpion bite took place on 9-7-1976 and then from that time he was admitted in hospital from 9-7-1976 for treatment He was sent to the Railw...
Jeewan Fertilisers and Chemical and Vice Versa Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN268
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. These two appeals CMA No. 80 of 1981 Employees State insurance Corporation, Rajasthan v. Jeewan Fertilizers & Chemicals Company (Private) Limited, Industrial Area, Kota and CMA No. 70 of 1981 M/s Jeewan Fertilizers & Chemicals Private Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation are against the judgment of the ESI Court, Kota, dated 9-2-1981 in ESI Misc. Case No. 14 of 1980.2. The only question which has impressed me during the arguments in these appeal is that the ESI Court should have bifurcated the amount Which is wages in the wrong of construction, building or repairs in contradistinction to the price or cost of the material and profit. No contribution can be claimed on the entire amount spent in repairs or building constructions or additions. The profit and the cost of material is to be excluded and the wages part only is to be included. This can be done after notice to the Company to file documents and evidence to show the two components separately.3. In th...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Advance Auto Technico Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN558
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act against (he judgment of the ESI Court Jaipur, dated 7-2-1980 in ESI Case No. 35 of 1979.2. The ESI Court in the operative part of the judgment order observed as under:Therefore the petition is partly allowed and it is held that the applicant is liable to pay contribution for the period from 26-10-1975 to 26-3-1977 at Rs. 2,969.31 and damages at Rs. 890 80 only. Besides this the Corporation is held entitled to charge interest at the prescribed rate on the amount of contribution till the demand was sent to the Collector for recovery. The amount paid by the applicant is to be adjusted from the above amount found payable by it.3. Having heard Mr. J.P. Gupta I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved, so far as the quantum of damages is concerned because it is based on consideration of peculiar facts in this case.4. However, so far as charging of the interest is concerned M...
Smt. Chandi and anr. Vs. Nana Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)137
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This is a defendants' revision against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera dated 17-3-1986, by which he dismissed the defendants' application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and held that the suit was triable by it.2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff Nana Lal instituted the suit against Smt. Chandi and others for the cancellation of two sale deeds and declaring them void against the plaintiff and further praying that the defendants may be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the land in dispute. The case of the plaintiff was that Khasras No. 330 measuring 2 bighas, 2 biswas, No. 950 measuring 2 bighas, 8 biswas. No. 962 measuring 2 bighas, 4 bishwas and No. 963 measuring 1 bigha, 17 biswas were in 'Khatedari' of Madan Lal, Moti Lal and Ramjas sons of Ram Dayal. Moti Lal died leaving behind his widow Jawer Bai. Before the death of Moti Lal all three brothers Moti Lal, Ra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »