Rajasthan Court March 1991 Judgments
Mewar Khaniz Udyog Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer Anti Evasion
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN153
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the assessee Under Section 15, Rajasthan Sales-tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rajasthan Act') against the order of the learned member, Rajasthan Sales-tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated July 6,1988 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Udaipur dated February 4,1988, confirming the assessment order levying tax on the freight charges and imposing penalty and interest thereon. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. On December 17, 1986, the business premises of the petitioner was surveyed. It was noticed that the amounts of freight recovered from the buyers were not included in the taxable turn over. After giving notice to the petitioner and hearing it, assessment order Under Section 9, Central Sales-tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called 'the Central Act') read with Section 7-B of t...
Tag this Judgment!Derby Textiles Ltd. Vs. Mahamantri, Derby Textiles Karmachari and Shra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ528Raj; 1991(1)WLN256; 1991(2)WLN99
J.R. Chopra, J.1 This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge of this Court dated 4.9.1989 whereby the learned single judge has maintained the award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Jodhpur dated 16.6.1989.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this special appeal briefly stated are : that the labourers of the petitioner-company went on strike on 11.12.1986 and with the intervention of the Labour Commissioner, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur the matter was settled and the strike was called off on 22.4.1987. On 22.4.1987, all the labourers of the petitioner company along with the office bearers of the respondent Union were taken back on duty. However, on the very next day, a chargesheet was served on Shri Jabarsingh, Bhanwarsingh, Ranidansingh, Kanti Prasad, Bhoor Singh, and Markandey on 23.4.1987. A reply was filed by the aforesaid labourers and it was prayed that they should be allowed to be defended by the Trade Union Leader...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Akshya Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN152
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Akshya Kumar respondent was tried for the charges Under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal. Vide judgment dated January 20, 1982 he was acquitted of the charges. The State of Rajasthan feeling dissatisfied by the judgment of acquittal preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1982. Complainant Poonma also felt aggrieved by the judgment and filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 111 of 1982 which was connected with the appeal filed by the State. As the appeal and the revision petition arise out of the same judgment, I propose to dispose them of by one judgment.2. The facts of the case leading to the trial of respondent were that on May 5, 1980 Poonma lodged the report at Police Station Bhinmal about respondent Akshya Kumar causing injuries to his wife smt. Gawari with an axe. Case was registered Under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. and investigation proceeded.3. The learned Magistrate held that the three witnesses viz. Rama (...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan and anr. Vs. a State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN507
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard. According to the Analysis Report of the Assistant Agriculture Chemist, specification as per FCO was 16.0 percent P205 Composition of the fertiliser has found after analysis 15.6 percent. Permissible tollerance limit is 0.1 unit. Variation was 0.4 unit. Looking to this small variation, the application deserves to be allowed.2. It is ordered that the petitioners (1) Laxminarayan S/o Ganesh and (2) Ramkaran S/o Hanuman Sahay Pooniya, it sought to be arrested by the SHO Police Station Shahpura (Dist. Jaipur), in pursuance of FIR No. 38/1991, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rs. six thousands) with two sureties in the amount of Rs.3,000 each, to the satisfaction of the SHO of the said Police Station, to appear before him for interrogation, whenever called upon to do so, be released on bail....
Tag this Judgment!Gurdeo Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC267; 1991(1)WLN464
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 5, 1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Hanumangarh by which appellant Gurdeo Singh was convicted Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months R.I.2. Succinctly narrated the prosecution case disclosed in the FIR lodged by Mohd. Sadeek (PW 1), brother of deceased Sharif Khan, at Police Station, Peelibanga at 1.00 P.M. is that his brother Sharif Khan was visiting the house of Gurdeo Singh. Gurdeo Singh suspected Sharif Khan of having illicit relations with his wife. That day i.e. on August 5, 1984 at about 10.00 A.M. he and his brother Sharif Khan were going to their field. Gurdeo Singh followed them and along with his brother proceeded ahead while talking with him. Mohd. Sadeek remained a little behind. Gurdeo Singh inflicted 'kassi' blow on the back side of the neck of Sharif Khan. He fell down. Gu...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Meghwal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)112
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule are disposed of by the common order as they involve similar question of law. For the convenient disposal of all the writ petitions, the facts given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3564 of 1989 are take in into consideration.2. This writ petition and those mentioned in the annexed schedule involve a complex human problem that employees serving in various departments having continued in service for number of years, still they are treated as casual employees and are being paid at the rate of daily wages. In spite of putting in number of years service they are still insecure about their job as well as their economic condition. This problem has received an serious consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions which I will have an occasion to discuss at appropriate place. However, the fact remains that the Government has not paid much attention to this human problem, which has resulted in large number of pet...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Chand and ors. Vs. Khinwa Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)171
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the Judgment of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh District-Churu dated 9.1.85.2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate has wrongly taken the cognisance against them.3. The relevant facts, in short, are that the petitioner No. 1 is a complainant against Khuiwaram non-petitioner in FIR Case No. 65 of 1983 dated 24.9.1983. The petitioner No. 2 is Sarpunch of Gram Panchayat. The petitioner No. 3 is witness in a criminal case. The petitioner No. 4 is the brother of Gopichand. The petitioners No. 5 and 6 are the nephews of Gopichand and the petitioner No. 6 is also Government Servant working as Deputy Vaidya in the Government of Rajasthan.4. The petitioner No. 1 Gopichand filed a first information report at the police station Taranagar on 24.9.83 to the effect that his one camel and Bull (Sandh) were stolen away. The SHO police station Taranagar registere...
Tag this Judgment!Aramachine and Lakri Vikreta Sangh, Nagpur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj7; 1991(1)WLC551; 1991(2)WLN286
K.C. Agrawal, C.J. 1. This writ petition challenges the validity of the Rajas-than Forest Produce (Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1983) framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act1).2. The petitioner is an Association of ,Aara Machinery and Lakri Vikreta Sangh and all those who are engaged in this business in the district of Nagaur are its members. The association looks after the interest of its members.3. In exercise of power conferred by Sections 41 and 42 of the Act, the State Government made the rules to provide for the establishment and regulation of saw mills. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1983 is as under :--'(i) No person or authority shall, after the commencement of these Rules, establish any new saw mill except under and in accordance with a permit granted under Rule 4. (ii) No owner of a Saw Mill:-- (a) in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Bheronlal Vs. Pooranchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)163
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this second appeal filed by Bheronlal defendant-appellant are as under:A suit filed against the defendant-appellant by the respondents No. 1 and 2 (the plaintiffs) was decreed by the learned trial court on 29.9.1984. The appellant filed an application in the copying agency on 23.10.1984 for grant to certified copy. He was directed to come to copying agency on 27.10.1984 for collecting the copy, but the copy was riot ready. Thereafter the copy was made ready on 6.11.1984 and a notice under Rule 235 of the Civil Courts Rules was affixed on the Notice Board intimating that the copy was ready. The copy was however collected by the appellant from the copying agency on 22.11.1984 and along with the certified copy so obtained the memorandum of appeal was filed by the appellant who also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating that he was not in know of the order dated 29.9.1984 and he learnt about it only on 22.10.1984 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Minerals and Chemicals Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)168
K.C. Agarwal, C.J.1. This petition under Act, 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by M/s Jaipur Minerals and Chemicials, Jaipur for directing and restraining the State of Rajasthan and other respondents arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from collecting excise duty or bank guarantee or surety from the petitioner. The other relief claimed was that the respondents be directed to refund the amount realised from the petitioner byway of excise duty amounting to Rs. 16,800 along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. The petitioner is carrying on business in manufacturing industrial chemicals using denatured spirit.2. For appreciating the points involved in this petition, a brief history relevant for refund and invalidating the impugned notification would be necessary.3. In 1979, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1688 of 1976 filed by Mahalaxmi Paints Industries against the State of Rajasthan, challenging the levy on denatured spirit by the State of Rajasthan, was decided ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »