Rajasthan Court February 1987 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.
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Judge, Labour Court
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN864
Suresh Chandra Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioner') to challenge the Award (Annex-P-8) dated 10th May, 1979, made by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court')2. Shiv Shanker, respondent No. 2 hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent workman') was appointed as Conductor with the petitioner Corporation under order dated 29th December, 1973. The said appointment of the respondent workman was made on temporary basis for a period of two months. In pursuance of the said order the respondent workman joined duty on 31st December, 1973. The said appointment of the respondent workman was extended for a period of one month upto 28th March, 1974 by order 28th February, 1974. It was further extended upto dated 28th April, 1974. It was further extended upto 28th April, 1974 by order dated 27 March, till 28th May 1974 by order dated 2nd May,1974 and till 28th Ju...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Regal Sports and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC379(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. Both these matters are references which have been heard as revision under the newly substituted Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1964, as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984.2. The Tribunal had referred a common question of law arising in both these cases by a common order, which is as under:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, football and volleyball covers made of leather are covered by item No. 39 of Government Notification No. F. 6(40) F.D. (R & T)/63-XIII dated 2nd March, 1963 and therefore, taxable at 7 per cent ?3. The contention of the dealer in these cases is that there is no specific entry governing the transaction of sale of football and volleyball covers made of leather, and, therefore, the same are taxable at the lower rate prescribed by the residuary entry. The department on the other hand contended that the specific entry providing for a higher rate of tax at 7 per cent covers these sale transactions and t...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Moongalal Durgalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC291(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This was initially a reference which is now heard as a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1964, as substituted by the Amendment Act of 1984. The question of law referred by the Tribunal for decision of this Court was the following, namely :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that 'edible oil' is a raw material within the meaning of Section 2(mm) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?2. During the relevant accounting period, the dealer purchased and utilized edible oil worth Rs. 28,183.06, in the prescribed manner, for the purpose of manufacturing pulses treating the edible oil as a raw material in the process of manufacture of pulses. The assessing authority rejected the dealer's contention that the edible oil was a raw material liable to be taxed at the concessional rate prescribed in the Act. Ultimately, the Tribunal took the view that the dealer's contention was correct, and th...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Oriental Agencies
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC141(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This was a reference made by the Tribunal, which is now to be heard as a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. 2. The question of law referred by the Tribunal for decision by this Court is the following:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, rubber hose pipes are not covered by entry No. 63 of the notification dated 29th May, 1967 which reads as under : 'All types of sanitary goods and fittings and all types of pipes and pipe fittings The dealer claimed that the sale of rubber hose pipes during the relevant period was covered by the residuary entry taxable at 6 per cent and not by entry No. 63 of the notification dated 29th May, 1967 providing for a higher rate of tax, which reads as under : All types of sanitary goods and fittings and all types of pipes and pipe fittings.3. In respect of the same dealer, for different period of assessment in D. B. C. S. T. Reference...
Kanwara Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN367
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Undisputed and admitted fact is that cartilaginous part of the nose of Kishna Ram PW 1 was completely chopped off from his face by Kanwara Ram accused at about 2.00 p m. of August 27, 1976 along with a part of the medium nasal septum by a sharp edged cutting instrument. Facts disputed, however, are that while according to Kishna Ram PW 1, when he was returning with his son Beerbal aged 4 years and the herd of his cattle after making the herd drink water in a 'nadi' (water pond) adjoining the public way leading from village Benan to village Rama Bas in Tehsil Bilara, district Jodhpur, the accused persons Kanwara Ram, Bhaga Ram and Kheeya Ram, all sons of Lixman Ram, came following each other, started beating him, dragged him to their field which is at a distance of about 40 foot steps from the public way, Bhaga Ram straightway asked the remaining accused persons to cut his nose, Bhagaram sat on his chest, Kheeyaram and Shamboora on his shoulders and the two la...
Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)134
Gopal Krishan Sharma, J.1. This is petition under section 482 Cr. Procedure Code against the order of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 3-5-1986, by which he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner Jai Singh for the return of motor-cycle which was confiscated by the Police.2. The notice of this petition was given to the Public Prosecutor on 23-1-1987 and he was directed to produce the case-diary today. The learned Public Prosecutor states that he has not received the case-diary and he is unable to assist the Court with regard to this case. This is very sad affair that the State is so negligent and the Investigating Officer is so powerful that inspite of the direction of the Court, he did not produce the case-diary today. This Court being the highest Court of the State cannot work on the mercy of the Investigating Officer. If the case-diary is not submitted by the Investigating Officer, it is the matter between the Public Prosecutor and the Government of Rajastha...
Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN429
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. In the month of September, 1975 Radhey Shyam Sharma petitioner was posted as Assistant Area Organiser in the area office at Myajlar of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (for short, here in after 'the Commission'). On September 14. 1975, the petitioner made a report to the Incharge Police Out-post Myajlar that during the night intervening 13th and 14th September, 1975 there had been a theft of an iron safe and a gunny bag from the centre of the Commission at Myajlar. There was cash amount of Rs. 3,600/-, inside the iron safe. It was requested by the petitioner that the case may be investigated. The Police Out-post Myajlar was within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Sam in District Jaisalmer. While Guman Singh PW 9 was Incharge of the Police Out-post, Myajlar, Harkishan PW 7 was The Officer-Incharge of the Police Station, Sam. On that date, no Station House Officer was posted at Police Station, Sam Hari Kishan PW 7, who was only a Head C...
Smt. Raghu Bala Sharma Vs. Chandra Prakash Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN534
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a miscellaneous petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 18-10-1986, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota, where he confirmed the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kota dated 23rd August, 1986 rejecting the application of the non-applicant under Section 125 Cr. P.C.2. Mr. Bhargava learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gupta for the non-petitioner prayed that instead of deciding the case for grant of interim maintenance the application for reviewing the entire case may be decided as the points raised are very short.3. I have given the thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the lower courts. There is no doubt and it is common ground that the husband and wife are living separately and litigation is going on between them as admitted by Mr. Gupta on the ground of cruelty of the wife and the same is also pending. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›