Rajasthan Court April 1987 Judgments
Prabhu NaraIn Khati and anr. Vs. Daulat Ram Verma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj53; 1987(2)WLN773
ORDERInder Sen Israni, J. 1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 11-2-1987 passed by the learned Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 24/87 whereby he allowed the application of the non-petitioner for issue of injunction. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non-petitioner tenant filed a suit on 2-2-1987 for issue of perpetual injunction with the allegation that the disputed shop was leased out to him on Rs. 40/- per month and that the shop remained closed in the months of September and October, 1986 on account of personal reasons. On 3-11-1986 when he went to the shop, he found that the petitioners put their lock on the shop. Thereafter he met the petitioner No. 1 who assured him to open the lock, but did not remove the lock. Along with the suit an application under Order 39, Rule 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C was also filed praying that an injunction in mandatory form may be issued against the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Khuteta Vs. Badri Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj61; 1987(2)WLN525
ORDERInder Sen Israni, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23-3-1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Misc. Petition No. 54/87 confirming the order dated 17-3-87 passed by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, by which the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC was dismissed.2. The shop in dispute was mortgaged with the non-petitioners Nos. 6 and 7 for a sum of Rs. 6500/- for a period of 10 years by a registered mortgage deed dated 11-1-1968 and vacant possession of the same was handed over to the mortgagees. The mortgagees by virtue of powers vested in them according to the mortgage deed, gave the shop in dispute on rent to the present petitioner at the rate of Rs. 80/- p.m. The mortgagor filed a suit for redemption on 22-5-75 and a preliminary decree in his favour was passed on 11-7-79. On appeal, this preliminary decree was modified vide order dated 15-9-...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Lal and anr. Vs. Shiv Pal Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj130; 1987(2)WLN221
ORDERInder Sen Israni, J.1. Both the revisions arise out of the same order dt. 7th Oct., 1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur upholding the orders dt. 20-5-1986 passed in Civil Case No. 11/84 and 9/84. Since common point of law is involved in both the petitions, therefore, they are disposed of by this single order.2. The contention of learned counsel Shri B. K. Sharma appearing for the petitioners is that the non-petitioner tenant has not complied with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inasmuch as he has failed to deposit in court or to pay to the landlord rent month by month by 15th of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding 15 days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. He has pointed out that according to the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Malva Vanaspati and Chemicals Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Office ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: [1987]66STC267(Raj)
ORDERJ.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision by the assessee against the order dated 21st July, 1975, passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the assessee's revision. The only point for decision is, whether it has been rightly held by the Board of Revenue that the assessee is not entitled to pay sales tax at the concessional rate of 3 per cent instead of the normal rate of 7 per cent on the turnover of Rs. 2,60,669 for the period 27th March, 1971 to 21st August, 1971, relating to the tins, i.e., containers, in which the assessee sold vegetable ghee or oil packed therein. The Board of Revenue has held that the transaction is not of sale of empty tins separately from the vegetable ghee or oil as claimed by the assessee so as to enjoy the benefit of the concessional rate.2. By a Notification No. F. 5 (21) FD (CT)/71-3 dated 27th March, 1971, a concessional rate of 3 per cent is prescribed in respect of certain goods one of which is 'empty tins and empty barrels'. The assessee contends tha...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Vs. Thakurji Adinathji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN233
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 9-1-1987 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Jaipur City, whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6, Rule 17 for amendment of written statement.2. The non-petitioner has filed a civil suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity for the suit premises described in para 2 of the plaint. These allegations have been denied by the defendant petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, Cr. P.C. dated 5-1-1985, which was opposed by the non-petitioner and was dismissed as stated above.3. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and also perused the order of the lower court as also the proposed amendment, which is reproduced in para 4 of the petition.4. Mr. N.M. Ranjan learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that it has been proposed in the amendment that a ball...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Ramesh Leather Store
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC462(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision by the department against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 31st July, 1974 passed in favour of the assessee. The only question for decision is, whether the Board of Revenue has rightly held that the dressed sheets of hides/skins consisting of leather clippings used as soles in footwear were taxable under entry No. 12 and not entry No. 36 of the Notification No. F. 5(16)FD(CT)/69-2 dated 8th March, 1969. The contention of the department reiterated in 'this revision is that these goods are exigible to sales tax under entry No. 36 and not entry No. 12. These entries read us under :12. Hides and skins, whether raw or dressed.' '36. All kinds of leather goods except footwear.2. A bare perusal of the above entries shows that hides and skins of all kinds, whether raw or dressed, fall within entry No. 12 and entry No. 36 covers only that category of goods which is called leather goods except footwear. It is clear that in order to attract entry No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Trilok Chand Prem Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC432(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision against the order of a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue dated 6th February, 1976. The only point involved for decision is, whether the market area cess collected by the assessee from the purchaser of the goods sold within the market area for being paid to the market area committee can be included in the sale price of the goods for computing the taxable turnover of the assessee. The Board of Revenue has accepted the assessee's contention that the cess collected by the assessee on behalf of the market area committee from the purchaser of the goods does not form part of the sale price. Hence this revision by the department.2. On behalf of the department reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in [1980] 46 STC 477 (Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) to contend that the cess collected by the assessee from the purchaser must form part of the sale price since the liability for payment of the cess is on the assessee who...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Ceat Tyres of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC53(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This is a revision against the Board of Revenue's order dated 18th February, 1980 rejecting the department's contention regarding inclusion of an additional amount in the sale price for the purpose of computation of the taxable turnover of the assessee. The assessee carries on the business of selling tyres. According to the prevailing practice, if a tyre is found defective, it is replaced with a new tyre. However, in some cases where the tyre has been used for some time, a part of the price is charged while replacing it with a new tyre. There is no dispute that where the replacement by a new tyre is without charging any additional amount, no question arises for payment of sales tax in addition to the tax paid on the initial transaction. For the other category of cases the assessee pays sales tax also on the additional amount charged from the customer while making the replacement. The department contends that in such cases the assessee should pay sales tax on the ent...
Tag this Judgment!D.C.M. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Engineer (Hmt Sub-division), Rajast ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj64; 1987(2)WLN538
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the order of a learned single Judge (N. M. Kasliwal) in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1024 of 1984, decided on May 14, 1986 by which the writ petition has been partly allowed to the extent a concession was made by the respondent-Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the R.S.E.B.'), but has been dismissed for the remaining part. The only relief granted to the petitioners on the basis of the concession made by the R.S.E.B. is a direction for proportionate reduction in the minimum charges claimed by the R.S.E.B. to the extent of the power cuts during the relevant billing month; revision of the bilk for payment of minimum charges on this basts; and refund, if any, due to the petitioners as a result of revision of the bills. The main grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition that Clause 16(c) of the agreement dt./-Dec.15, 1981 between petitioners and R.S.E.B., particulars of which are stated hereafter...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Tavekar Vs. Ranjeet Mathur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN342
P.C. Jain, J.1. In both the contempt petitions identical questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order For the sake of convenience, the facts of S.B. Contempt Petition No 17/1987, are taken into consideration.2. This is a petition under Section 12 read with Section 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for commiting respondents No 1, 2 and 3 for contempt for violating the order dated 17th October, 1986, passed by this Court.3. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution pf India. The contention of the petitioner was that he was not appointed on the post pf Senior Clerk as per the selection letter dated 12th September, 1985, whereas many persons lesser in merit than the petitioner were appointed. This Court on 17th October, 1986, passed the following Order.Issue notice of the stay petition. In the meantime, the petitioner shall be given appointment-as a Senior Clerk in accordance wit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »