Rajasthan Court December 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.
Satish Kumar Sethi Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)574
N.K. Jain, J.1. This special appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order of learned Single Judge dt. 5.5.92 whereby he has dismissed the writ petition.2. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this special appeal in brief are that the petitioner is dealing in denatured spirit and denatured spiritious preparations like Thinner which is a denatured spiritious preparation and under the head of denatured spiritious preparation, duty was charged on Thinner considering that to be a denatured spiritious preparation. It was alleged that in lieu of excise duty, the non-petitioners started taking bank guarantee and solvent security in view of the order of Single Judge of this Court holding that the State Legislature is not competent to impose excise duty or counter-vailing duty on denatured spirit and denatured spiritious preparations. It was also alleged that the petitioner presented bank guarantee to the tune of ...
Rashid Mohd. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj167b; 1994(1)WLC626; 1993WLN(UC)512
Mathur, J. 1. All these writ petitions involve common question of law and fact, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of Rashid Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan (DB Civil Writ Petition NO.-3102/1992) are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the validity of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act, 1988 (Ad No. 14 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') being violative of Articles 14, 19, 265, 300A, 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. He has also prayed that the demand notice (Anx. 4) may be quashed.4. The petitioner purchased a Tata Chasis new model 1991 Engine No. 692 D023 90935 Chasis No. 364 0465 from M/s. Standard Motors, Daman in consideration of Rs. 3,36,840/- inclusive of local Sales tax alias 3% vide bill No. 1920 dated 17-6-1991. Copy of bill has been annexed as Annex. 1. The petitioner then got t...
Vidya Dhar Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ935Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service of Hindustan Copper Limited at Khetri complex on his appointment as Smelter (C) by order dated October 5, 1973. On account of his alleged participation in the strike the employer invoked Clause 7 of the Model Standing Orders and terminated petitioner's service with effect from February 28, 1975. However, he was reappointed with effect from March 8, 1975 after he had tendered unqualified apology. Then he was promoted as Smelter (B).2. A charge sheet dated November 27, 1984 was served upon the petitioner with the allegation of his having committed misconduct under Clauses 14(3) (b) and (h) of the Model Standing Orders. Petitioner submitted his reply and then an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. On the basis of the report of Enquiry Officer a show cause notice dated September 11, 1985 was served upon the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his explanation as to why he be not dismi...
Antim Ramdeo Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)WLC765; 1993WLN(UC)271
B.R. Arora, J.1. These three writ petitions raise a common question of law and facts and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The District Judge, Balotra, vide Notification dated 27.9.89, invited applications for appointments on seven posts of Lower Division Clerk and for empanelment against the future vacancies. The petitioners, in pursuance to this Advertisement, applied for the post of Lower Division Clerks in the District Judgeship, Balotra. The petitioners were called for written examination, which were held on 26.11.89. The petitioner qualified the written examination and, therefore, they were called for typing test, which was held on 21.1.90. The petitioners qualified both these tests. After the written examination and the typing test, a merit list (Annexure. 2) was prepared on 22.1.90, in which the name of petitioner Antim Ramdeo was shown at serial number 9, the name of petitioner Durgesh Kumar was shown at serial number 10 and that of petitioner B...
Sangarsh Samiti Pradhan Adhyapak Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Vs. the State of ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)WLC756; 1993WLN(UC)468
B.R. Arora, J.1. The case has come-up on an objection raised by the Office that the writ petition, filed by the petitioner Sangarsh Samiti Pradhan Adhyapak Madhyamik Vidhyaiaya, district Rajsamand, on behalf of forty-three persons, should bear the Court Fee Stamps of Rs. 25/- for each member of the petitioner association, on whose behalf the relief has been claimed and the writ petition has been filed, while the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, bears the Court Fee Stamp of Rs. 25/-only. As the point involved in this writ petition was an important one, therefore, a notice of the objection raised by the office, was issued to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur, and the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur.2. It is contended by Mr. Mridul-appearing Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association,) Jodhpur, on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Office has raised the objection on the basis of the order dated 14-...
Gouri Shankar and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)583
Farooq Hasan, J.1. The aforesaid two Review Applications have been filed against the common order dated 17.4.91 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2185/88, 2770/88 and 2791/88. Against the aforesaid judgment/order Smt. Kusum Gupta, whose writ petition No. 2185/88 was dismissed has already filed S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that has been admitted. The other two petitioners namely; Gourishanker and Nand Kumar Agrawal have filed Review Applications. As the common question of law is involved in these Review Applications and as such, they are decided by a common judgment.3. The brief relevant facts of the case, are that the petitioners became members of 'New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited' for its Sidharth Nagar Scheme, Jaipur and deposited the requisite fees and charges. The Society allotted Plots No. E-45 and E-124 in Sidharth Nagar Scheme to Shri Gourishanker and Nand Kumar Agrawal respectively vide allotment letters No. 6308 and 6309 dated...
Maruti Udhyog Ltd. Vs. Instrumentation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas455(Raj)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. By this order, the application filed by the respondent-company on December 8, 1993, under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, and Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, is being disposed of.2. An application filed by the respondent-company for dismissal of the company petition on the ground that an enquiry under Section 16 of, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), was pending had been dismissed by the court on October 14, 1993, and a special appeal filed against that order is pending consideration before the Division Bench.3. In this application filed on December 8, 1993, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition filed for liquidation on the ground that after October 14, 1993, a number of developments have taken place and they show that enquiry under Section 16 of the Act has been initiated and is pending.4. Shri S....
Gopal Synthetics Vs. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: 1995ACJ908; [1995(70)FLR72]; (1996)IIILLJ1155Raj; 1994(1)WLC646
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kota, dated October 12, 1987.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised four main points against the award. The first point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that Ram Karan, major brother of the deceased, is not a dependant in accordance With the definition given under section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The said section 2(1)(d) reads as under :'2(1)(d) 'dependant' means any of the followingrelatives of a deceased workman, namely-(i) a widow, a minor legitimate son, an unmarried legitimate daughter, or a widowed mother; and(ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm;(iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death-(a) a widower,(b) a parent...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC195; 1995ACJ619
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Doongarpur, dated 26.8.1985 by which he has awarded compensation to the claimants-respondents as follows:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. M.A.C.T. Appeal Name of deceased/ Amount ofNo. Case No. No. injured compensation----------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) 62 of 1982 76 of 1986 Mohanlal (injured) Rs. 6,100/-(2) 63 of 1982 72 of 1986 Ramlal (deceased) Rs. 72,000/-(3) 64 of 1982 75 of 1986 Lilaram (injured) Rs. 5,000/-(4) 65 of 1982 74 of 1986 Gautamlal (injured) Rs. 7,200/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. The facts of the cases giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. On 26.4.1982, Abdul Majid, respondent No. 1, was driving truck No. RSY 8849 from Vijaypur to Doongarpur. The truck was owned ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagwati Rerolling Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: [1995]211ITR227(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated January 12, 1982, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 85,008 made bythe Income-tax Officer on account of the provision for payment of electricity charges to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership-firm, was carrying on the business of re-rolling of billets and spurn and manufacturing of iron rods, angles, plates, fish-plates, etc., at Bundi. During the year under consideration, i.e., ending on March 28, 1977, no manufacturing activities were carried on. The assessee-firm had debited an amount of Rs. 48,888 to the profit and loss account. A provision was made in the books of account for payment of electric charges. D...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »