Rajasthan Court November 1993 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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dama Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ692; 1994(1)WLC655
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Banner, dated October 18, 1989, by which it has partly allowed claim petitions arising out of same accident and has awarded various amounts as compensation to the claimants as noted below:Sl. Number and year Name of AmountNo. of awarded in Rs. Misc. M.A.C.T. Deceased Injured Appeal Case(1) 34 of 1990 81 of 1988 Gordhan - 1,46,000/-(2) 38 of 1990 83 of 1988 Gopa Ram - 78,000/-(3) 39 of 1990 86 of 1988 Bagga Ram - 1,01,000/-(4) 40 of 1990 12 of 1989 Bagta Ram - 84,000/-(5) 33 of 1990 88 of 1988 - Dama Ram 39,000/-(6) 35 of 1990 79 of 1988 - Mala Ram 42,000/-(7) 36 of 1990 77 of 1988 - Amra Ram 60,000/-(8) 37 of 1990 75 of 1988 - Rekha Ram 78,000/-2. The facts of the cases giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. On November 27, 1986, truck No. RRN 1145 was going from Jodhpur to Ahmedabad via Balotra. It was loaded with stone slabs. The decea...
New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mst. Baikala and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC216; 1993WLN(UC)532
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Banswara dated August 1, 1987 by which it has partly allowed the claim petitions arising out of the same accident and has awarded various amounts as compensation to the claimants as noted below: Number and year of Name of AmountS. No. MACT awarded in Misc. Appeal Case Deceased Injured Rs.1. 8/88 34/82 Bherunath - 57,8002. 10/88 53/82 Gangaram - 25,1003. 11/88 33/82 Laxman - 39,0004. 12/88 35/82 - Nanu Ram 16,4005. 13/88 36/82 - Girdhari 12,0002. The facts of the cases giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. On May 31, 1979, truck No. GTY 4126, owned by Suresh Nathuram Agrawal (non petitioner-respondent No. 3) and insured by non-petitioner-appellant, was bringing cement from Kandla to Banswara. It was being driven by its driver Laxman (non-petitioner-respondent No. 2). The injured Radha Kishan, Nanu Ram, Girdhari and Kamla and deceased Lax...
Daud Ali Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC67; 1993WLN(UC)535
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Petitioner-Daud Ali has filed this second application for his bail Under Section 439, Cr.P.C. The earlier one was rejected by this Court on August 10, 1993. The earlier bail application was decided on merits of the case. The accusation against the accused-petitioner is that he was found in possession of 25 gms. of smack, on the search of his body, on May 15, 1993.2. It is urged by the learned Counsel that the petitioner was falsely implicated, as he was having inimical relations with Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. S.P.) Shri Surendra Nath. Learned Counsel further contended that after his arrest, telegrams were sent to the Higher Authorities, stating therein that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. Then, it was contended that the report of chemical examination of the sample from Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, 'FSL`) has not been received so far and the trial is likely to be delayed.3. I have given my anxious consideration to the above su...
The Rajasthan State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Shri Kamlesh Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC428; 1993WLN(UC)537
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. Respondent Kamlesh Jain was given punishment of with holding of three grade increments with cumulative effect. By filing a writ petition before Single Judge, he challenged that punishment order, on the ground that being a major penalty, the appellant, Raj. State Electricity Board, was obliged to follow the procedure applicable to impose such penalty. The learned Single Judge held it to be a major penalty and allowed the writ petition. Against the said order dated 14.8.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge, this special appeal has been preferred.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent.3. Regulation 5 of the RSEB Employees (C.C.A.) Regulations, 1962 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy, which reads as follows:5. Penalties:(1) The appointing authority or any authority higher than the appointing authority or any lower authority to whom power may be delegated by the Board in this behalf may inflict on any employ...
Aditya Mills Ltd. Vs. the Judge, Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR553]; (1996)IIILLJ1163Raj; 1994(3)WLC548; 1993WLN(UC)406
ORDERK.C. Agrawal, C.J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated November 20, 1982 passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. An application under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was filed by the petitioner for approval of the dismissal of Abdul Jabbar from the service of M/s. Aditya Mills Ltd., Kishangarh. A domestic enquiry for mis-conduct under Rule 24(b) Of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 was held against Abdul Jabbar. The misconduct alleged against Abdul Jabbar was that a charge-sheet in respect of his absence from duty was given to him on February 8, 1982 at about 4.00 p.m. After the receipt of the charge-sheet, Abdul Jabbar incited the workers of the Winding Department to close their work. The work was closed at 4.00 p.m. The workers went on strike on the call giv...
C.T.O. Vs. Radiant Industries of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]95STC463(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law on the directions being given by this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that trade discount does not form part of the sale price, while under Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, only cash discount has to be excluded from the sale price ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that in the assessment order for 1968-69 and 1969-70 under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the assessing authority levied tax on the trade discount. The decision which was taken by the assessing authority was that under Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, it is only the cash discount which is allowed. Section 2(h) read as under :' 'sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but incl...
Jalani Karyalaya Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer Circle 'D'
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC386; 1993WLN(UC)442
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 15, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated July 5, 1989 by which it has allowed the appeal of the Department, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur and restored the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'D', Jodhpur, holding that the petitioner's 'JALJIRA' and 'CHURANS' do no fall under the entry 'Medicine and Drugs and All Kinds of Pharmaceutical Preparations (5%)' but fall under the last entry (Residuary) (7%) of the Notification No. F5(16) F.D.C.T/69-7 dated March 9, 1976, issued under Section 5 of the Act.2. At the time of admission of the revision petition, the following question of law was formulated:Whether the Tribunal was justified In holding that the 'Jaljira' and 'Churans' manufactured and sold by assessee are not medicine & exigible to tax @ 5%, but are taxable at the r...
Associated Stone Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR821(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated September 30, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,08,008 being conditional subsidy received from the Rajasthan Government under the subsidised housing scheme for industrial workers did not form part of the 'actual cost' of the labour colony under Section 43(1) and, consequently, the assessee-company was not entitled to get deduction for depreciation of Rs. 4,820 on the said amount under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act was not allowable in respect of expenditure of Rs. 3,25,506 on freight, packing charges, etc., and in respect of Rs. 4,287 ...
Mohan Lal Kataria and anr. Vs. Nagar Parishad, Sri Ganganagar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj202
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No, 1, Sri Ganganagar dated Nov. 29, 1991 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Additional Munsif, Sri Ganga-nagar dated October II, 1990, rejecting the application of the plaintiff-petitioners moved under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Nagar Parishad, Sri Ganganagar (non-petitioner No. 1) with the allegations, in short, that public part exists in front of their shops, a piece of land measuring 15'x 10'of this park is being given to Sam Khadi Gramodhyog Samiti, Ganganagar (non-petitioner No. 2) for installing its STD/PCO booth withoutany authority and if the booth is constructed the frontage of their shops would be obliterated and praying that the Nagar Parishad,...
Prem Chand Vs. Madanlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)576
M.R. Calla, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115, CPC is directed against the order dated 23.3.93 passed by Shri Prashant Kumar Agarwal, Additional District Judge No. 3 Kota in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 137/90 whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of AMJM No. 1, Kota North, Kota dated 4.12.90 in Civil Suit No. 413/90 dismissing the application dated 22.10.81 of the defendant-petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree, has been upheld.2. This is second round of litigation between the parties before this Court. Earlier a revision petition No. 87/92 (Madan Lal v. Prem Chand) was decided by this Court on 27.4.87 against the order dated 7.11.81. The ex-parte decree was sought to be set-aside by moving an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The learned trial Court vide order dated 7.11.81 set-aside the ex-parte decree. Against this order dated 7.11.81 the plaintiff preferred a revision pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »