Rajasthan Court September 1992 Judgments
Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Raj)339; [1994]209ITR434(Raj)
JAIPUR BENCHK. C. AGARWAL C. J. - This writ petition, under article 226 of the Constitution, has been filed by Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. for a direction commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the order dated March 2, 1965, passed under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1960-61 against Messrs. Merchandise and Stores Ltd. and to refund the sum of Rs. 40,135 paid by the petitioner.By and order dated April 22, 1960, the Rajasthan High Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangements for the amalgamation of Messrs. Rajputana General Dealers Ltd. and Messrs. Merchandise and Stores Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. On May 20, 1960, the High Court of Punjab at Delhi also passed an order under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, for the amalgamation of the said Rajputana General Dealers Ltd. and the Merchandise and Stores Ltd. with the petitioner - Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. having i...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. Vs. R.T.A. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN157
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Both these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. For the convenient disposal of these two writ petitions, the facts given in the case of RSRTC v. RTA, Bikaner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 914 of 1988 are taken into consideration.2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a Corporation created under the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1950). In Bikaner Region there is a route known as Dungargarh-Beedasar via Dharmas, Reddi, Banna etc. in a length of 48 kms. and is 'A' class in nature. The respondent No. 2 held a non-temporary stage carriage permit covering vehicle No. RJF-3016 of 1967 model having its validity upto 22.2.1988. The respondent No. 2 submitted an application for the renewal of his permit on 11.6.87 which came to be published by the respondent No. 1 in the Rajasthan Rajpatra ...
Tag this Judgment!Khanna Electric Stores Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC354; 1992(2)WLN341
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the first proviso to Section 22(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 may be declared ultra vires to the extent it empowers the respondent No. 2 to sanction the retention of the seized account-books and documents being ultra vires of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He has also prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 16.12.1987 (Annex. 7) may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to return the account-books and documents seized by the respondents. It is also prayed that the respondents may be restrained from recovering the demand in pursuance of Annexs. 13 and 14 and demand notices Annexs. 15 and 16 respectively.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm known and styled as M/S Khanna Electric Stores, Sri Ganganagar located at Sri Ganganagar. It is constituted by 5 partners Sarva Shri Kashmirilal, Sudarshan Kumar, Raghuveer, Jaswantlal and Smt. Rampyari. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Lecturers' Forum and Jag Mohan Mathodia and Ors. Vs. State of Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1992
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ974Raj; 1993(1)WLC654
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Both these writ petitions involve similar questions of law. Even the facts are by and large similar. For this reason, these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.2. In order to decide the controversy between the parlies it is proper to set out some facts. The first writ petition was initially filed before the Supreme Court of India. By an order of the Supreme Court dated June 6, 1989 it was directed that the writ petition be treated to be one filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and be transferred to Rajasthan High Court. Thereafter this Court issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted and disposed of. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of 21 temporary lecturers working in the Rajasthan School of Arts and Rajasthan Sangcct Sansthan. These lecturers have formed an association with the name of Lecturers' Forum and through this Forum they have presented the petition. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Cotton Corporation and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ1015Raj; 1993(1)WLC161; 1992(2)WLN365
Mathur, J.1. These writ petitions involve common question of law and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Union of India (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1935 of 1991) are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner is a Corporation established with a view to regulate the purchase and sale of raw and processed cotton, their storage and transportation. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the orders Annexures 2 and 3 may be quashed and the provisions of Section 5 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1952') may be struck down.4. In order to appreciate the controversy, which has been raised in this writ petition and the other similar writ petitions, it will be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act of 1952. Sub-section (3) of S.I. lays do...
Tag this Judgment!Harphool Chand and 3 ors. Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC435; 1992WLN(UC)473
V.K. Singhal, J.1. Mr. Y.C. Sharma puts appearance on behalf of the respondents and accepts notices. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments of both the learned Counsel have been heard for final disposal of the petitions at the admission stage.2. Since a common question of law arises In all these writ petition, they are disposed of by this common order.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners have appeared in the 1st part of Ayurved Compounder/Nurising training course in January, 1991 and the result was declared on 14th August, 1991. In this result, the petitioners have been declared unsuccessful in one or moire than one papers. The second attempt was taken in December, 1991 and the result was declared on 7th July, 1992. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the First Part Course is for one year and the Second Par Course is for 11/2 years and in accordance with the provisions of 0.329 N-31 it h...
Tag this Judgment!Rahimbux Nabooji Chhipa Vs. the Rgional Director, Employees State Insu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)202
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 24, 1989, passed by the Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the E.S.I. Court dismissed the application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., filed by the appellant and refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff M/s Rahimbux Nabooji Chhipa filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, challenging the demand of Rs. 23,825.57p. raised by the E.S.I. Corporation, Jodhpur. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was, also, filed, which was dismissed by the learned E.S.I. Court.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant factory is not covered by the E.S.I. Act as it has less than twenty employees and is running without any power. It is, also, contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no proper...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Ram Om Prakash Mundra Vs. Smt. Sohani Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Raj70; 1992()WLN95
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated May 12, 1992, passed by the Civil Judge, Sojat, by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the petitioner's application by which an objection was raised regarding the competency of the Court to hear the appeal.2. Plaintiff Sohan Lal filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Sojat, against M/s. Kalu Ram Om Prakash, for eviction and arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, Sohan died and, therefore, his legal representatives Smt. Sohini Devi and others were taken on record. The suit, filed by the plaintiff, was decreed by the learned Munsif. The defendant, aggrieved with the decree and judgment dated October 28, 1989, passed by the learned Munsif, decreeing the suit, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Pali, on December 12, 1989. Summons of this appeal were issued to the plaintiff-respondent. The learned District Judge, by its order dated September 17/24, 1990 transferred the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat General and Seeds Stores and ors. Vs. Mahendra Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Raj189; 1993(1)WLC269
N.K. Jain, J.1. This is defendants second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of learned Addl. Dist, & Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur D/-6-12-90 whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Jodhpur, D/- 4-9-87 in Civil Suit No. 184/83.2. Brief facts which give rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent Achal Singh now deceased and Mahendra Singh filed a suit on 23-9-82 for eviction from the premises situated in Mohalla Beriyan outside Sojait Gate (mentioned in para 1 of the plaint) against the firm the appellant No. 1 and its four partners with the allegation that the defendant-appellant No. 1 took the shop on rent @ Rs.45/- per month and also agreed to pay house tax. It was also alleged that earlier the defendant had also not paid rent, a suit No. 35/64 was filed and the appellant had taken the benefit of first default in the. payment of rent from January, 1961, which was given to h...
Tag this Judgment!Angrej Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC462; 1992WLN(UC)175
Mohini Kapur, J.1. The petitioner is a truck driver. On 12.11.91. 150 bags were loaded in his truck from Indore and the description given in the goods receipt issued by M/s. Laxmi Oil Products Limited, Vishva Nagar, District Khargoan Madhya Pradesh showed that the bags contained animal food. According to the petitioner he was not knowing what was in the bags and he did not check the contents of the same. At the octori post near Deoli when his truck was checked it was found that the bags contained poppy straw powder. The accused was asked whether he wanted to be checked in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, but he agreed for the checking by Shrl Sheo Narain, Inspector, Narcotics who was on duty at the relevant place. After investigation a complaint was submitted before the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. His bail application before the trial court was pressed on the ground that he was not in conscious possession of any Narcotic drugs, but his plea was n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »