Rajasthan Court May 1992 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.
Hari Ram Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC452; 1992WLN(UC)91
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Since the question Involved in this application as also in DB Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 42/92 is same, both these applications are being disposed of together by this order. The brief facts are as under:2. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 411/91 (the appeal) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2928/89 (the writ) were fixed for preliminary hearing before this Bench on 16.9.1991. The appellant in the appeal and the petitioners in the writ were being represented by the same learned counsel. Since none appeared in the above said cases, they were dismissed in default. On 11.10.1991 this application and the application No. 42/92 were filed in this Court for restoration of the appeal and the writ respectively with a prayer that the cases be restored.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and have also perused the records.4. The only contention raised before us by the learned Counsel for the applicants is that on 16.9.1991 the lawyers of this Co...
Duli Chand and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ827
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated February 18, 1992,' passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge took cognizance against petitioners Dull Chand and Dayal Singh for the offences under Sections 147, 323/149, 302/149 and 307/149, IPC and issued Warrant of Arrest for seeking their presence.2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the FIR No. 159 of 1991, lodged by Chhinda Singh at Police Station, Hindumalkot, is that in the previous night, at about 9-00 p.m. his son Prithvi Singh was coming on his tractor from the field. When he reached near the house of Jeet Singh, situated in the Chowk, Prakash Singh came before the tractor and untied the hook of the trolly. Jeet Singh, who was armed with a Kripan, inflicted injury on the head of Prithvi Singh, upon which he raised an alarm. Thereupon Mohan Singh and his father Tara Singh and the wife of Mohan Singh went there. Pra...
Ram Raj Nahta Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN371
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order dt. 31.12.87 (Anx.4) withdrawing the exemption from payment of entertainment tax in respect of film 'Dharam Bhai' produced by the petitioner may be declared illegal and same may be quashed.2. The petitioner produced a film titled 'Dharam Bhai' in the Rajasthani Language. The petitioner made an application to the respondent State praying that exemption from the entertainment tax for a period of six months may be granted to him in respect of the said film in accordance with the Rajasthan State Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to the Act of 1957). This application of the petitioner was allowed by the order dt. 14.9.1987 and copy thereof has been placed on record as Ex. 1. In pursuance of the exemption granted by the respondent State, petitioner was required to submit two prints of the said film to Audio Visual Education Officer, Ajmer for the purpose of its exhibition withou...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Kanchan Bai Bader (Decd.) and ors. (by ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1992
Reported in: [1994]206ITR285(Raj)
I.S. Israni, J.1. In all the abovementioned wealth-tax reference applications, filed under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1957'), common questions have been raised by the Revenue, with a prayer that the same may be referred for making reference to this court, for its opinion. Therefore, they are decided by a common order.2. In Reference Application No. 108 of 1988, the following questions have been referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified ; (i) in holding that in order to ascertain the actual market value of the closing stock of the firm for the purposes of Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the export invoice value has to be reduced by 35 per cent. ? (ii) in holding that the export invoice value is not the market price but merely a quotation notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ? (iii) in holding that the difference between the mark...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Late Smt. Kanchan Bai Bader, Through Lr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Raj)223
ORDERINDER SEN ISRANI, J. :In all the abovementioned WT Reference Applications, filed under s. 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for brevity, the Act), common questions have been raised by the Revenue, with a prayer that the same may be referred for making reference to this Court, for its opinion. Therefore, they are decided by a common order.2. In reference Application No. 108/88, the following questions have been referred :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified :(i) in holding that in order to ascertain the actual market value of the closing stock of the firm for the purposes of r. 2B(2) of WT Rules, the Export Invoice value has to be reduced by 35%;(ii) in holding that the Export Invoice value is not the market price but merely a quotation notwithstanding the provisions of s. 18 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act;(iii) in holding that the difference between the market value and the cost price of the closing stock of the firm is less th...
Rajasthan Nahar Rashtriya Mazdoor Union and anr. Vs. State of Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)113
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioners No. 1, Rajasthan Nahar Rashtriya Mazdoor Union is a union of the employees employed under the Government of Rajasthan in the Rajasthan Canal Project Command Area Development (R.C.P.) and is registered under the Unions Act, 1926. Petitioner No.2 is the Vice President of the aforesaid Union, who has been authorised by a resolution of the executive committee of the Union to file the writ petition. The writ petition has been filed for the visdication of the grievances of its members.2. In brief, the present petition relates to work-charged employees of the Rajasthan Canal Project. It is alleged that work-charged employees are being appointed by the Government of Rajasthan in various departments including P.W.D. (B&R;), Water Works, Irrigation, R.C.P. etc., and such work-charged employees are appointed for particular works, both original and maintenance. Their service conditions being of transitory nature are loss favourable to the employees in comparison...
Suresh Mehta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Raj61; 1992(3)WLC267; 1992(2)WLN81
K.C. Agrawal, C.J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by Suresh Mehta against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by him on February 10, 1992 along with Asulal Sancheti and Jawaharlal for quashing of the allotment . of land made by the Urban improvement Trust. Later on Asulal Sancheti and Jawaharlal withdrew themselves from the writ petition arid, thereafter Surest Mehta was left alone. He has filed the present appeal.2. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the land in dispute had been left j. put for the use for a park and that the Urban Improvement Trust had no power to let it out to Jodhpur Medical research Centre Trust (for short 'Trust') for construction, df the hospital. For the submission, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the: previous litigation when a portion of the land had been let out by the U.I.T. to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. At that time, the allotment was challenged as invalid being against ...
(Sayed) Mehrab Ali Vs. Shahid Ali and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC83
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. Smt. Aneesa, divorced wife of the petitioner moved an application for grant of maintenance on behalf of her two minor sons Shahid Ali and Sadiq Ali. On this application, an order was passed on 19th July, 1990 for grant of interim maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to each of the son. This amount was payable from 1lth April, 1990. Rs. 500/- were allowed by way of costs and the payment was adjustable according to the final decision. The petitioner filed a Misc. Petition against this interim order and on 4th September, 1990, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 550/- by way of costs of expenses and the petitioner was further directed to deposit Rs. 200/-per month out of which Rs. 75/- were to be adjusted towards the past arrears. This petition was consigned to record on 21st November, 1991 when no one appeared.2. On 11th October, 1991 the application for maintenance was finally decided by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk and each of the minor son was allowed ...
AlladIn Vs. L.Rs. of Mangilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN307
N.K. Jain, J.1. This is defendant's revision directed against the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera dt. 27.5.91 in civil original case No. 3/86 whereby he has allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 2 CPC filed by the Non- petitioners.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the tenant of the disputed shop which belongs to Darjiyon Ki Panchayat, Nimbahera and used to pay rent to one Mahgilal who was to collect rent as the authorised rent collector. Mangilal died on 26.6.89, and an application was moved by the non-petitioners to take them on record. The learned trial court vide its order dt. 27.5.91 allowed the application. Hence, this revision.3. Mr. Mehta has submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly substituted legal representatives of deceased Mangilal and they cannot claim any right, and right to collect rent goes with his death.4. On the other hand Mr. Maheshwari has submitted that the disputed shop belongs to 'Darjiyon Ki Panchay...
Ram Prasad Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ766Raj; 1992(1)WLN389
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These five writ petitions raise common questions of law and so, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Briefly stated, the facts of each case are as follows:(1) Radheshyam's case: (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 907/87). It has been contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as L.D.C. w.e.f. December 1, 1985, on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day and he was allowed to continue till May 4, 1986. Thereafter, he was again appointed as L.D.C. with effect from May 5, 1986 for a period of three months on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/-per day and he was allowed to continue up to October 6, 1986. Thereafter, his services were terminated. Again, he was appointed as L.D.C. on daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- per day with effect from February 2, 1987 to February 28, 1987 through Employment Exchange vide order Annexure-2 dated January 30, 1987. He has, therefore, contended that he was continuously remained in service with effect from December ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »