Rajasthan Court July 1991 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.
P.N. Dhoot Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: [1993]88STC25(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. In both the above writ petitions identical questions have come up for adjudication and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 687 of 1991 is by P.N. Dhoot Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur (for short, 'the investment company') through its director, Shri V.N. Dhoot. The investment company is manufacturing washing machines of household at its Aurangabad factory. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 970 of 1991 is by Dome Bell Investment Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'the company') through one of its directors Shri P.N. Dhoot. The company is manufacturing colour television sets at Noida factory. The investment company as well as the company are transferring the manufactured products to different branches situated in different States which are its selling points and such branches are registered in their respective States in sales tax laws as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act'). So far as the investm...
Smt. Veena Danial Vs. Sunil Danial
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC84; 1991(2)WLN325
M.R. Calla, J.1. This reference has been made by the Distt. Judge, Bharatpur for confirming the decree nisi passed in favour of the appellant against the respondent. The respondent and the appellant were married in accordance with the Christian Rites in June, 1984. Shortly, after the marriage the respondent in order to satisfy his lust asked the appellant to have intercourse with him by indulging in sodomy. She resisted but the respondent succeeded in committing sodomy with the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant left the place of her husband and came to her mother's house in Bharatpur in December, 1984. The respondent thereafter came to Bharatpur to take her. The mother of the appellant intervened and wanted to settle the matter in between them. But she could not succeed as a result whereof, the appellant and the respondent could not have marital relations. The appellant, thereafter, filed an application before the Distt. Judge Bharatpur for passing of a decree for dissolution of mar...
Gyan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN454
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order (Annexure5) of the Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Gr. 1) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dated January 28, 1981 by which 1/5th of the pension payable to the petitioner has been with held under Rule 170, Rajasthan Service Rules. The facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.2. In the year 1974, the petitioner was Tehsildar cum Sub Registrar, Revdar (Sirohi). 55 bighas 7 biswas of agricultural land situated in village Harni Amrapura Tehsil Revdar (Sirohi) was sold by the Khatedars Devisingh, Bhanwar Singh and Lal Chand for Rs. 20,000/-to Pabudan Singh, Prabhu Singh and Bhagwan Singh, sons of the petitioner, and three sale-deeds were presented before him for registration and they were duly registered. Mutation of the said agricultural land was duly effected in their favour. On October 10, 1975, charge-sheet under Rule 16, Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control a...
Manohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)310
N.K. Jain, J.1. Mr. Rastogi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has moved an application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stating that the accused petitioner could not furnish surety bond before the trial court within two months from the date of the order of this Court dated 1.5.1991. He has submitted that the accused appeared before the trial court in time but the record of the trial court along-with the copy of the judgment of this Court did not reach upto 8th July, 1991 and by that time the months there granted by this Court had expired and the trial court has declined to accept and verify the surety bond. Under, these circumstances, the delay in filing the personal bond is neither wilful and beyond his control due to non receipt of the record in the trial court from the High Court. The trial court has issued a warrant of arrest on 11.7.1991. The accused has also filed an affidavit in support of the application Mr. Vyas has not opposed this prayer.2. I, Having heard learned Counsel for the...
Ajit Singh Choudhary and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1991
Reported in: 1998CriLJ527
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Nine persons viz. (1) Mahesh Choudhary son of Veera Ram, (2) Ajit Singh son of Prabhu Ram Jat, (3) Rajesh son of Nemichand Choudhary, (4) Shyam Singh son of Nain Singh Rajput, (5) Rajendra Soni son of Umaida Ram Soni, (6) Bharat Bhusan son of Ram Bux Suthar, (7) Rajendra Ghanchi son of Girdhari Lal Ghanchi, (8) Kau Mal Sindhi son of Teu Mal Sindhi and (9) Dinesh alias Pappu Gujar son of Mohan Singh Gujar were prosecuted under Sections 147, 364, 330, 307 in the alternative 307/149, 342, 302 in the alternative 302/149 and 384 IPC for having caused the death of one Deepak Agrawal and several injuries to one Rajesh Jodha.2. On trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Accused Person as follows:---------------------------------------------------------------Accused Convicted SentencedUnder Section ---------------------------------------------------------------Mahesh Choudhary 147 IPC 1 Yr. RIAjit Singh 364 IPC (in Rajesh respect of Rajesh) 5 Yrs.Shyam Sin...
Dhanna Lal Banthia Vs. Gaurav Private Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas881(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. By this company petition under Section 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), against Gaurav Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'the company'), the petitioner, Dhannalal Banthia, has sought the following reliefs :(i) to pass an order for the change of the management of the company and the petitioner may be ordered to be appointed as director of the company, (ii) Shri Dharam Chand Jain and Shri Suresh Chand Jain may be ordered to be removed from the post of directors and they may be restrained from controlling the management of the company, (iii) to set aside all the meetings held by the directors of the company, (iv) to pass an order setting aside all the illegal actions and decisions taken by the directors in the affairs of the company and for the same the directors personally be held liable, (v) to pay the due amount of the petitioner and also pay dividend to the petitioner on his shares with interest. 2. The company was incorporated on October 21, 1982, and has...
Venkateshwara Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. District Level Committee
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN395
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. In all these petitions a common question of law has been raised, therefore, they are decided by one single order.2. Petitioners-companies briefly slated, on the basis of various advertisements issued from time to time by State of Rajasthan/RIICO/RFC and the assurances said to be given by Chief Minister and other higher-authorities established new units at Jaipur. They wanted, that new entrepreneurs should establish industries in Rajasthan. Such newly established industrial units were exempted for payment of tax on the sale of goods manufactured by them within the State as per Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 (for brevity Incentive Scheme'). The annexures referred to are as in writ petition No. 6083/90. The State Level Committee vide its decision doted March 24, 1990 (Anx. VII) decided that units which have established their industries in a rented accommodation will not be entitled to the benefits given to them under the Incentive Scheme. Hence thes...
Shriram Singh Vs. Mohanlal Sukhadia University and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj148; 1991(2)WLN414
ORDERInder Sen Israni, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the provisions of the Pre-Teachers Education Test (PTET), 1990 may be struck down, which provide that a candidate should have studied the subsidiary/ additional subjects for at least two years, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is resident of District Jhunjhunu. He passed B. Com. from the University of Rajasthan, in the year, 1987. The mark-sheet issued by the University is Anx. 2. In the year, 1988, he passed his B.A. in additional subject, History (Anx. 3) and in the year, 1990, he passed B.A. in additional subject, Sanskrit (Anx. 4). Respondent No. 1, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur issued a provisional permission letter to the petitioner, for appearing in TET, 1990. He was successful and came in the merit. The provisional admission letter for the Session 1990-91 dated Nov. 9, 1990 (Anx. 7) was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 and his centre was ...
Shiv Raj Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj99
ORDERB.R. Arora, J. 1. This writ petition and the writ petitions, the particulars of which have been given in the Schedule appended to this judgment, involves a common and identical questions of law, which can be decided by this judgment. The fact of all the writ petitions are similar and common except in regard to parties, route in question and some other consequential details. 2. The petitioners, who are existing operators on the routes mentioned in the writ petitions, are plying their buses on the routes in question on the basis of the non-temporary stage carriage permit granted in their favour by the respective Regional Transport Authorities. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') came into force with effect from July 1, 1989. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the respective Regional Transport Authorities will grant limitless number of stage carriage permits on the route, on which the petitioners are operating, as under Section 80(2) o...
Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN52
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to give admission to the petitioner, who holds qualification of Secondary in Part-I of Diploma in Pharmacy Course and quash-the qualification of Higher Secondary mentioned in the advertisement in Anx. 2. dated 27.8.1989.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner passed Secondary School Examination in 1981 from Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, with optional subject of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. He got second division. The marks sheet is marked as Anx. 1. An advertisement dated 27.8.89 (Anx. 2) was issued, by which, applications for admission to diploma in Pharmacy Course were invited for the year 1989-90. In this advertisement, minimum qualification prescribed, apart from other things was higher secondary examination. It is contended by Shri Sharma learned Counsel that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement are against the provisions of Clause 3 of Education Regulations 1981...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »