Rajasthan Court January 1989 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.
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Jodhpur Legal Practitioners Co- ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC269(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision against the order dated 16th April, 1987 of the Sales Tax Tribunal, dismissing the department's appeal.2. The point involved for decision is covered by my decision in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Laxmi Misthan Bhandar(1988) 25 STL 123 (Raj). The assessee was running a canteen and the Tribunal has held that sales and the services made by it prior to 2nd February, 1983 when the Forty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution of India came into force are not taxable unless tax has been collected from the customers specifically on bills and deposited, or arrears of it remains due to be deposited on account of any competent order. The period in question in the present case is prior to the date of coming into force of the 46th Amendment to the Constitution on 2nd February, 1983.3. In the aforesaid decision it was held by me as follows :The only matter for decision herein is with regard to the transactions prior to 2nd February, 1983 relating to servin...
Quazi Mohammed Saddiquee Vs. Wahid HussaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)38
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision against the trial court's order dated 18-10-1985 rejecting the petitioner's application made under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for being impleaded as a party in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. Wahid Hussain in which the other respondents are defendants. The suit was filed in 1966. The petitioner claimed an interest in the subject matter of the suit on the ground that he was Mutwali and Sajjada-nashin of the Dargah duly appointed under a Will executed by late Peer Nazar Hussain husband of defendant-respondent No. 2 Habiban. It is not necessary to mention other facts relating to the claim of the petitioner.2. The trial court has rejected the application mainly on the ground that the suit is pending since 1966. No doubt, pendency of the suit for such a long time is a matter of serious concern but that is no reason for rejecting an application for being impleaded as a party if the petitioner claims to be even a proper party to the suit. It cannot be said...
Bhanwar Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)242
Mohini kapoor, J.1. This bail application under Section 438 Ct. PC was presented on 4-10 1988 and on several occasions the case diary was not received it was directed that the petitioners should not be arrested and they should appear for interrogation before the Investigating Agency. On 15-11-1988 it was reported that inspite of the best efforts of the petitioners they were not interrogated. Thereafter directions were issued again and on 14-2-1988 it was found that the petitioners had been interrogated, but several persons who could be said to be having knowledge about the case had not been examined. It was also found that the investigation had been examined. It was also found that the investigation had been transferred to the CID and this court directed that the investigation should be completed at an early stage and if necessary the petitioners could be called far interrogation again. It has been stated that the petitioners have been interrogated by the CID who investigated the case,...
D.S. Mehta Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)353
1. Shri D.S. Mehta, the appellant, who is Dy. S.P. in the C.RP.F. had challenged the order dated 7-8-1985, Ex. 13 on the record, by which his junior had been promoted superseding him, by filing a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 9-7-1986 holding that the petitioner-appellant should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. This order has been challenged by the petitioner appellant in this appeal2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Although, the matter had come up for hearing of the stay application No. 2/89, but the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the appeal itself may be heard and disposed of at this stage because it involves a small question of law only.3. Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provides exceptions saying that the provision of this Act shall not apply to (a) any member of the naval military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union By judgment...
Rameshwar Lal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1989
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)301
S.N. Bhargava, Member1. These writ petitions have been filed by the Patwaris who have been transferred from one District to another District by order dated 6-8-1988. The writ petitions were admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties and operation of the tmpugned transfer order dated 6-8-1988 was stayed. Notices were served. The writ petitions came up for confirmation of stay order on 14-9-1988 when time was sought and one month's time was granted to file the reply. The cases again came up for confirmation of stay order on 26th October, 1988 but the reply had not been filed till then and three week's time was further granted to file the reply. The petitions again came up for orders on 10-11-1988. Mr. K.N. Shrimal, Additional Government Advocate prayed for further time to file the reply but we did not think it necessary or proper to grant further time to file reply. These cases have again came up today i.e. on 21-11-1986 but the reply has not been, filed so far. Arguments w...
Ram Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Raj67; 1992(2)WLC639; 1(1989)WLN(Rev)252
ORDERI.S. Israni, J. 1. We have heard Mr. Mehriah, learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the judgment dated October, 19, 1967 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a twofold contention. The first is that the Board of Revenue did not go into the question as to whether the agricultural lands for which ceiling proceedings were initiated were ancestral property or not and without going into this question dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and his two sons viz. Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop. The second contention is that once the ceiling case is decided under chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the old Ceiling-Law') against the assessee and has also been decided under the provisions of Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Ceiling Law') they cannot be reopened under subsection (2) of Section 15 of the New Ceiling Law.2. We shall...
Kana Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj143; 1989WLN(UC)373
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. This order will dispose of this writ petition as well as the identical writ petitions detailed in Schedule annexed to this order*.2. Before we take up the facts of Kana v. R.T.A. (Writ Petn. No. 2853. 88), it may be stated that the preliminary objection about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and maintainability of writ petitions, which has been raised by learned Counsel for the non-petitioners, may first be dealt with.3. It is contended by Mr. M.I. Khan, Additional Advocate General, counsel for the Regional Transport Authority, Haryana, that counter-signatures for a period of four months, from time to time, were done by the Regional Transport Authority, Faridabad/ Hissar in Haryana State and therefore, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has alone the jurisdiction in the matter. We may state that u/Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), the Regional Transport Authority on an application made to it u/Section 46 and subject to the pro...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Kwality Restaurant
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC264(Raj)
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, against the order dated April 23, 1987, passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, in an appeal against the order of the assessing authority.2. This revision is similar to Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Laxmi Misthan Bhandar (1988) 25 STL 123 (Raj) and the period of assessment in this case also is prior to 2nd February, 1983, on which date the Forty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution came into force. The Tribunal has held that sales and services by restaurants, canteens, etc., made prior to 2nd February, 1983 are not taxable unless tax has been collected from the customers specifically on bills and deposited, or arrears of it remains due to be deposited on account of any competent order. It was held by me in the aforesaid decision in Laxmi Misthan Bhandar's case (1988) 25 STL 123 (Raj) as under :The only matter for decision herein is with regard to the transactions prior t...
K.K. Tiwari Vs. Superintendent of Police Cbi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)494
P.C. Jain, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of (SIC) or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the proceeding pending in the Special Criminal Case No. 9 of 1971 in the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases, Jaipur on the ground of violation of his fundamental right of speedy public trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are not material because the question posed for our consideration is a (SIC) question of (SIC) so, (SIC) facts may be briefly stated since they would provide the (SIC) drop against which the question of law arises for consideration. The (SIC) for the factual matrix may be stated thus:3. The petitioner, in the year 1976, when he was posted and working as Income tax Officer at Sawai Madhopur, CBI, Jaipur registered a case, No. 27/76, on 17th September. 1975 against him under Section 5 read with Section 5/2 o...
Ramesh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)292
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The appellant Ramesh has been convicted Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-; in default to undergo one months simple imprisonment. He has further been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, by judgment dated 15-2-1984. He has come up in appeal.2. The matter has come up for disposal of the bail application today but the learned Counsel for the appellant unused that the appeal itself may be disposed of since he would only contend that the offence Under Section 302, IPC is not made out and the appellant could have been convicted only Under Section 304, Part I, IPC. The learned Counsel has no objection to the appeal being heard. Therefore, we proceeded to hear the appeal.3. The facts now not in dispute are that on 9-5-1983, the deceased Bheru and the accused Ramesh were going to take tea at the bus stand Baneda. The witnesses Kailash and La...