Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1997Raj85
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 18-7-96 passed by Shri Pratap Singh, Civil Judge (J.D.), North Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 142/90 by which the learned Civil Judge held that the document in question (Agreement to Sale dated 28-1-90) though not registered and properly stamped could be used by the defendant for the colateral purpose.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against the non-petitioner-defendant for permanent injunction in the trial Court. She averred that she has been in possession of residential plots Nos. 3 and 4 in Sundawas Area of the City of Udaipur in which boundary wall has been constructed around the above plots. The plaintiff further allegedthat the defendant was interfering in her peaceful possession and enjoyment. She, therefore, prayed that the defendant be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with her peaceful and lawful possession. The defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(2)WLN122
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a relief to quash the demand notice dated 28.8.88 Annx. 3 to the writ petition demanding dead-rent from 6.11.78 to 5.11.79 amounting to Rs. 8,745.35.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that one Shri Govind Ram Khatri was granted a mining lease fro mining fullers earth near village Santhan Ki Dhani, District Barmer on 19.4.74. Shri Govind Ram and petitioner Gordhan Dass moved an application to the Government to grant sanction for the transfer of above mining lease in favour of petitioner. The sanction was accorded by the State Government with stipulations that Govind Ram Khatri will arrange settlement of royalty accounts and clear all the dues in respect of the present lease which may accrue till final transfer to Shri Gordhan Dass petitioner. There are stipulations in the sanction that since the transfer deed was to be executed between transferor and transferee an attested co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997CriLJ668
A.S. Godara, J.1. This appeal has been filed, under Section 374, Cr.P.C. through the jail authorities, by the convict appellants against the judgment and order dated 29-1-1993 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 200/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story relevant for the present decision is as follows: Smt. Santara (deceased) was married to the appellant about 15 years prior to the incident which took place on 9-5-1991 at about 8 a.m. Besides P.W. 6 Kum. Sunita aged 10 years, two more daughters were born out of their wedlock. P.W. 3 Anwar and P. W. 4 Trilok are brothers of the appellant. P.W. 2 Smt. Mohani is their mother. The appellant was living in Pattipeda, Rani Bazar, Bikaner. The appellant often meted out cruel and torturous treatment to his wife (deceased) and used to beat her.3. On 9-5-1991 at about 8 a.m., while Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(3)WLC684; 1996(2)WLN259
P.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nathdwara dated 9.5.96 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 28/96 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.2. It appears that the non-petitioners filed a suit against the petitioners and Tilkayatji in the court of learned Civil Judge, Nathdwara raising a dispute regarding the distribution of prasad and seeking relief of perpectual injunction against the Board and Chief Executive Officer to restrain them from interfering with Tilk Maharajji's right of distribution of prasad. The petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit-filed by the plaintiff was hit by Section 31 of the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959 (Act No. 13 of 1959). Since the relief claimed by the plaintiff substantially fell within the perview of Section 31 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC208; 1996WLC(Raj)UC324; 1996(2)WLN296
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 9.10.90 passed by Collector, Jaisalmer, Anx. 5 to the writ petition, in exercise of his power under Section 91 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act imposing penalty for constructing house over lease land granted to him as envisaged under Section 89(7) of the said Act. He further sought a relief for quashing notice issued in consequence thereof for his appearance in his court by Tehsildar, Jaisalmer, Anx. 8 to the writ petition.2. Brief facts leading up to filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner had applied for grant of mining lease for mineral masonary stone near village Badabagh Tehsil and District Jaisalmer for an area measuring 100 meters X 100 meters whereupon the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur granted a mining, lease. A lease was executed between State and the petitioner on 20.4.90, a copy whereof is filed alongwith writ petition and marked as Anx. 1.3. A close scrutiny of terms...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Reported in : (2003)133STC428Tribunal
1. The aforesaid applications were filed under Section 8(1) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995, challenging the vires of the third proviso to Section 22A(7), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (in short, "the Act"). In view of the stay order passed by the honourable Rajasthan High Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 3449 of 1995, (Dalpat Raj Bhandari v. Union of India) the Tribunal did not pass any order on these applications. As such the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petitions in the honourable Rajasthan High Court. After the operation of the said stay order was stayed by the honourable Supreme Court, the writ petitions were transferred to this Tribunal and the Tribunal proceeded further in all these cases. As the facts are similar and law involved is same, these cases are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In his application and writ petition, the petitioner Amrit Pal Singh has averred, in short, as follows. He is the owner of the Truck No.HR-26/0492. He has gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC327; 1997WLC(Raj)UC655; 1996(2)WLN509
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition questions the order impugned dated 20.7.96, anx. 1 to the writ petition, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar directing recounting of votes in an election petition filed by respondent No. 1 Subhash against him on the sole ground that the order impugned has been passed by the learned Election Tribunal against the mandatory provisions of estoppel as envisaged under Sub-rule (6) and under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 49 read with Rule 51 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (in short 'the Rules of 1994') framed by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 102 read with Section 17(5) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act of 1994').2. The brief facts leading upto filing of the present writ petition are that the election for the office of Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Raisinghnagar, Ward No. 9, took place on 20.1.95 and counting c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC96; 1996(2)WLN263
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.10.1987 Annx. 3 to the writ petition passed by the Tehsildar, Bhinmal District Jalore (respondent No. 3.)2. Facts of the Present case are not disputed upto this extent that the petitioner was granted a short term permit under Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986') by the Mining Engineer, Sirohi for extracting and removing 200 tonnes of earth clay from Khasra No. 261 of village Tawab, District Jalore for which he had paid Rs. 300/- at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per ton, photostat whereof is filed and marked as Annx. 1 to the writ petition.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.L. Shreemali as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 Mr. R.L. Jangid and learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 Mr. S.K. Vyas.4. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(2)WLN254
V.K. Singhal, J.1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by this judgment and for the sake of convenience, the fact of Ramjilal Sharma are taken into consideration.2. The dispute in all these writ petitions is with regard to the seniority list prepared by the respondents in pursuance of the 'directions of this Court. The dispute is between the promotees and direct recruits. The writ petition No. 3170/1987, was filed by Dhanraj Sharma which was decided on 7th Oct. 1992. In the said writ petition the court observed that the respondents failed to act in accordance with the provisions of the rules in the matter of determination of seniority and keeping this failure on the part of the State Government Labour & Welfare Service Rules, 1958 it was directed that the respondents shall determine the yearwise vacancies in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1956 and second direction was given that the apportionment of the vacancies so determined shall be on yearly basis mai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1998]229ITR657(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. In this writ petition, Circular No. 681*, dated March 8, 1994, requiring to deduct the tax at source has been prayed to be quashed. In the said circular, the term 'service contract' was defined as service rendered as lawyers, physicians, surgeons, engineers, accountants, architects, consultants, etc. This circular was issued on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR435(SC) where the observations were made that 'there is nothing in the sub-section which could make us hold that the contract to carry out a work or the contract to supply labour to carry out a work should be confined to works contract'. On the basis of this observation the provision of Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was sought to be applied to professionals.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is contrary to the provisions of the Act.3. The arguments of both learned counsel for the parties have been heard. This ma...
Tag this Judgment!