Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(1)WLC554; 1994(1)WLN652
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The above mentioned writ petitions and other similar petitions mentioned in Schedule 'A' annexed herewith are disposed of by a common order, as they are identical and common questions have been raised, which relate to imposition of lax on the transfer of property in goods involved in execution of a works contract. More precisely, the grievance of the petitioners is that in view of the decision of the apex Court of the country in M/s Gannon Dunkerley & Co. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1983) 1 SCC 364 : (1993) 88 STC 204, whereby Section 5(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RST Act' or 'the Act') and Rule 29(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were declared unconstitutional and void, no tax is leviable in the State of Rajasthan on the goods and materials used in a works-contract, but still the same is being charged by the Commercial Taxes Department and the awarders of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1995)IILLJ452Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This petition is directed against the award dated October 23, 1991, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, in Case No. I.T. 207 of 1989. 2. On the basis of a departmental enquiry held against respondent No. 1, the competent authorities of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'), passed orders dated June 6, 1981, February 24, 1978, and January 2, 1985, imposing penalties of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect, two grade increments with cumulative effect and three grade increments with cumulative effect respectively. The Rajasthan State Roadways Anusuchit Jati/Janjati Karmachari Sangh raised a dispute in relation to the punishment imposed on respondent No. 1. Efforts made for settlement before the conciliation officer failed and after considering the failure report of the conciliation officer, the State Government issued notification dated November 8, 1989, for reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3066; 1994(2)WLC69; 1994(1)WLN252
ORDERR.S. Verma, J.1. Manish Kumar Sharma. who is lacing trial under Section 306, IPC, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1. Jaipur City. Jaipur, has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned trial Court dated 13-10- 1993. whereby a charge under Section 306, IPC, has been framed against the accused-petitioner.2. Briefly staled, the case of the prosecution is thai deceased, Smt. Kusum Devi, aged about 32 years, was resident of Gangaur-ka-rasta in the city of Jaipur. She was married to first-informant, Ram Kishore, some 20 years back. Srnt. Kusum Devi had u daughter Seema and two sons - Rakesh and Anil. Ram Kishore had two brothers and out of them Ram Charan and his wife - Santosh were residing with Ram Kishore. Thus, it was a large family. Ram Kishore was serving as a Class-IV employee in the Tourism Department. His son Rakesh was studying in VIth Class, while the other son Anil Sharma was employed in Rajasthan Shilp Gram Udyog.3. It appears that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(1)WLC582; 1994(1)WLN229
M.R. Calla, J.In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. Claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion w.e.f. 2.1.85 is rejected. However, it is declared a that supersession of the petitioner at the time of issue of promotion order dated 23.7.85 was arbitrary and illegal. The respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion as U.D.C. w.e.f. 23.7.85. While reconsidering the case of the petitioner the punishments and special report shall not be taken into consideration. Necessary order of such reconsideration should be issued at an early date and latest within two months. Costs made easy.2. Learned Single Judge has gone through the annual confidential reports of all the candidates who fell within the zone of consideration, including the petitioner and has thereafter noted that when the D.P.C. met in the year 1985, the ACRs of certain candidates not only for one year but for several years, were not having any remarks of the Reporting Officer what to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2141; 1994(1)WLN572
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-7-1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Hakru for the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Indian Arms Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22-6-1991, at about 7.00 p.m., Bhuria S/o Onkar was returning to his house along with his cattle from the water-pond after fetching water to the cattle. In the way, accused-appellant Hakru met him, who was abusing and blaming Bhuria that he had stolen seven of his sheep and was, also, challenging him that he would not spare him and will put him to death. Whereupon Bhuria asked Hakru why he was charging him as a thief. Thereupon Hakru, sitting on his Padsal (Chabutari) fired on Bhuria by his country-made gun with an intention to kill him. The fire hit Bhuria on his left side of body. Bhuria, after receiving the fire-arm injury, kept his hand on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1997]88CompCas192(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, against the order dated August 29, 1991, passed by the official liquidator attached to this court by which the claim of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation was not allowed in respect of the following three items :(i) The claim of the appellant has been admitted as an ordinary claim instead of preferential claim. (ii) Interest has been allowed up to December 1, 1983, and claim of interest for subsidy period has not been allowed. (iii) The expenses of Rs. 15,040 have not been allowed. Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) applied for a loan to the appellant. A loan for a sum of Rs. 19.50 lakhs was sanctioned but an amount of Rs. 16,88,000 was disbursed. A claim was filed as a secured creditor for Rs. 18.87 lakhs in respect of principal and interest from August 15, 1981, to February 28, 1991. The amount of Rs. 15,040 was also claimed on account of expenses incurred in conne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1994Raj153; 1994(2)WLN47
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated October 26, 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge No. I. Sri Ganga-nagar affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated July 17, 1990 for eviction from the suit premises situated at Sri Ganganagar.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against the appellant on January16, 1986 on the ground of default alleging that the premises were let out at Rs. 125/- p.m. and the defendant has neither paid nor tendered any rent since Nov. 1982. Thus he has failed to pay or tender rent for a period of more than six months on the date of filing of the suit. The defendant resisted the suit and averred that initially the rent was Rs. 30/-p.m. and in the year 1978, it was increased to Rs. 35/p.m.3. By its order dated October 7, 1986, the trial court determined the amount of rent and interest payable under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(2)WLC155; 1994(1)WLN370
M.R. Calla, J.1. This criminal appeal Under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dt. 9.6.93 passed by the Sessions Judge, Baran, in Sessions Case No. 80/92 whereby the appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 and 364 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- Under Section 302 IPC and Under Section 364 IPC, he has . been sentenced to five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, he has been awarded three months' further R.I.2. The alleged incident is said to have taken place in the early hours of 10th May, 1992. A written report was lodged at Police Station Anta on 10.5.1992 being FIR No. 77/92 and on the said report, a case was registered Under Section 364 IPC. The written report which was lodged is Ex.P.7 and as per this report, the allegations are as under:3. Smt. Nirmala Bai wife of the accused appellant has stated in the report that she was married to the appellant Vinod Kumar about 10-1.2 years back. Two years prior ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(2)WLN35
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This revision petition is directed against the Order dated December 9, 1993 by which the application of the petitioner Under Order 11 Rule 12 has been dismissed. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that for the production of these very documents, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected on October 19, 1989 and the revision petition against that order was also dismissed by this Court on January 30, 1991 and this Court directed to decide the suit within three months.3. After rejection of the application for taking these very documents on record, the application in question was moved after about four years when the suit was ripe for decision. The trial court while taking note of the aforesaid fact has found the application not bonafide and was also of the opinion that provision of Order 11 Rule 12 are not applicable.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that Order 11 Rule 12 is an independent prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(1)WLN496
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company and is a manufacturer of Cement in its Factory at Chittorgarh.2. As a part of its business activity for transportation of lime stone from the pit heads of mine to the crushers, the petitioner placed six orders for supply of six HM 1035 type dumpers to the Hindusthan Motors Limited, Tiruvulur, Tamil Nadu. The dumpers known as rear dump trucks were sold to the petitioner fitted with E-3 tyres, 2.3 CUN body extension and front suspension on cylinder as is apparent from Annexure/5, the invoice. For the purpose of transportation from the place of despatch viz. Menallathur to Chiltorgarh body and tyres were dismantled and sent separately that is apparent from despatch challan Annexure/4. The ease of the petitioner further is that out of the said six dumpers, three dumpers were cleared in the last week of July, 1993 by the Ratanpur check Post of the Commercial Taxes Department without demanding any entry tax. Two dumpers were detai...
Tag this Judgment!