Rajasthan Court November 1991 Judgments
Sheopat Ram Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC665; 1991(2)WLN459
R.S. Verma, J.1. Sheopat Ram, who was writ petitioner before the learned single Judge, is the appellant before us. Learned single Judge dismissed his petition holding that the same is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in Ram Rakh v. State of Raj. and Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition. No. 110/1991 decided on 5.3.1991). Aggrieved, Sheopat Ram has filed this Special Appeal.2. We may briefly notice here the facts giving rise to the writ petition and this appeal. The appellant is a member of Golawala Siyagon Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, hereinafter called the Samiti.The Samiti is a duly registeted Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter called the Act. Election of the Committee of the Society was to be held on 27.1.91. Election of the office bearers of the Society was to be held on 28.1.91. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Suratgarh appointed respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1991
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ474Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioner, who is physically handicapped and who belongs to Scheduled Caste, has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit-4 dated September 6, 1990 by which his service, as a temporary Part-time Farash, has been terminated on the basis of the directions issued by the Director, Social Welfare Department, vide his circular dated August 7, 1990.2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the service of the Social Welfare Department in the year 1986 and was posted under the District Children Officer, Social Welfare Department, Sikar with effect from October 1, 1986 and was paid wages of Rs. 11 per day. He has continuously worked under Respondent No. 3 as a Class IV employee and has discharged duties for eight hours per day. Vide his letter dated March 11, 1988, the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, wrote to the District Children Officer, Social Welfare Department, Sikar to regularise the service of the petitioner, who was describ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Bhanwar Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC463; 1991WLN(UC)251
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Heard. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal. The question before the Tribunal was as to whether a government servant, who has sought voluntary retirement under Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and thereafter seeks employment in Jaipur, Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank, which, admittedly, is not a department of the government nor is government service, he is not entitled to increase in pension which is admissible to the pensioners of the State Government? The Tribunal considered the matter and placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in (1) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 291/89. State of Raj. v. Amar Singh Bordia and Anr. decided on 24-5-1990, (2) Prof. D.L. Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1782/87 decided on 22-9-1989 and took a view that the persons like the respondent, who had sought reemployment in Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank were entitled for increase in the D.A. in pension and the very fact that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sheeyam Sunder Vs. Raja Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLC318; 1991WLN(UC)445
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Civil Judge, Nagaur dt. 17.9.90 whereby he has allowed the application Under Section 10 and 151 C.P.C. filed by the non-petitioner and stayed the proceedings of civil suit No. 11/79.2. Brief Facts of this case are that the petitioner purchased the disputed house from Badridas for Rs. 6000/-. Which was under mortgage with one Kishanlal Sita Ram who gave it to Raja Ram, the non-petitioner on rent 68/- per month. The petitioner paid full amount of the mortgager. He had also given notice to the tenant Raja Ram to vacate the house but Raja Ram did not vacate the house. Thus, the plaintiff filed a suit No. 11/79 on 1.6.79 for eviction against the non-petitioner Raja Ram. Brothers of Badridas being aggrieved by the sale of house to Sheeyam Sunder filed a suit No. 24/82 for partition as the same could not be sold by Badridas alone as the house is ancestral one. They have also prayed that Raja Ram should be declared...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pratap Commercial Co. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR579(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has sent these references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, along with the statement of cases and the question of law arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is as under :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Central Government subsidy is not deductible from the money cost to the assessee of its plant, machinery and building while computing the original cost thereof under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of allowing depreciation or investment allowance, etc. '2. In these cases, the assessees have received Central Government subsidy during the previous year relating to the assessment year under consideration. The Income-tax Officer, while completing the assessment, deducted the amount of subsidy so received from the cost of plant and machinery, building, etc., for the purpose of granting depr...
Tag this Judgment!Raju (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Pradeep and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ857; (1995)IIILLJ428Raj
N. K. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 28.2.1989 by which he has awarded Rs. 63,406.00 as compensation.2. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Commissioner has erred in not awarding interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim and the respondents may be directed to pay the same.3. Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has submitted that as the compensation has already been paid question or payment of interest does not arise.4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.5. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr. 1976 ACJ 141, it has been held that it was the duty of the appellant under Section 4A(1) of the Act to pay the compensation at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent.6. In Shankarlal v. General Man...
Tag this Judgment!Nihon Nirman Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Excise
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT268(Raj); 1992(3)WLC513
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :'(i) accept the writ petition,(ii) direct the respondents to accept revised classification list filed by the petitioner for the white cement being produced by it to be treated as rapid hardening cement/ordinary portland cement under sub-head 2502.20,(iii) direct the respondents to make assessment of the petitioner and pass the order to that effect under sub-head 2502.20,(iv) restrain the respondent from realising excise under sub-head 2502.90 at the rate of 40% ad valorem,(v) direct the respondents to give benefit of the notification dated 25-7-1991 holding the petitioner liable to pay excise at the rate of Rs. 90/- P.M.T.,(vi) direct the respondents to refund the excess excise duty realised from the petitioner in excess of the excise leviable as per sub-head 2502.20 and the notification dated 25-7-1991,(vii) direct the respondents to abide by the orders passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Delhi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikha Ram Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN351
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 17-10-1990 as well as has prayed that Rule 5(2) of the Rules be struck down. It is further prayed that the petitioner may be directed to be reinstated as Public Prosecutor, Jodhpur.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the convenient disposal of this writ petition, are that the petitioner is an Advocate and his name is on the rolls of the Bar Council of Rajasthan. He was appointed as Public Prosecutor at Jodhpur on 30-7-1988. Though the initial appointment of the petitioner was for a period of six months but the same was extended from time to time and the last extension was granted upto 30-6-1993 by the order dated 27-12-1989. However, his services were terminated on 17-10-1990 and one Pokar Ram Bishnoi was appointed vice the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the validity of Rule 5(2) as well as the order terminating his services.3. A return has been file...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Umar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLC660; 1991(2)WLN298
V.S. Dave, J.1. These habeas corpus petitions have been filed challenging the order of detention dated 1st May, 1991 issued under Section 3(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the FERA') passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India detaining the petitioners (the detenue). The aforesaid order of detention was served on the detenues on 19-5-91 and 9-5-91 respectively and as the order shows, the same had been issued with a view to prevent the detenues from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of the foreign exchange. The order of detention (Ann. A) was also accompanied with the grounds of detention running into eight pages and the documents which have been relied upon while preparing the grounds.2. Officers of the Customs and Central Excise, Bikaner had searched the premises of one Bashir Khan s/o Shri Haju Noor Khan resident of Fatehpur, Sikar in pursuance of some information on 25th Jan., 1991 and in the said search t...
Tag this Judgment!Kankaria Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: [1993]200ITR408(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In the petition submitted under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'), the following two questions have been raised :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of the individual assessment of the partners having been completed prior to the assessment of the firm, the firm could not be refused registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the partnership-firm constituted by a partnership deed dated August 5, 1981, was not a legal partnership, and was not entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act ?' 2. In the present case, the firm was constituted as per the partnership deed dated August 5, 1981. The Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Pali, passed an order under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act that since no capital was contributed by Smt. Manju Kumari, a vali...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »