Rajasthan Court January 1997 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.
Bheru Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN83
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. As common questions of law and facts are raised in this petition and batch of petitions shown in the Schedule annexed herewith and forms part of this order, they are decided by this common order.2. The facts no longer in dispute are that a notification dated 21.2.90 Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 4.6.92 for acquisition of land for Urban Improvement Trust (U.I.T.), Udaipur for the purpose of Udaipur - Bhuwana Extension Scheme. Preceding the Gazette notification, notification Under Section 4 was published on 31.3.90 is Rajasthan Patrika, Udaipur and on 1.4.90 in another news paper. The notification Under Section 4 was again published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 17.5.93 and on 19.5.93 in daily news paper Pratah Kal. The declaration Under Section 6 of the Act dated 17.5.94 was published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 24.5.94 and further published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 9.10....
Mehta Vegetables P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR425(Raj)
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. These two writ petitions involve identical questions and, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the penalty imposed on them in terms of Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Against the assessment orders, the petitioners have preferred regular appeals and in those appeals stay was not granted to the petitioners by the appellate authority. The petitioners came up before this court after rejection of such applications on the grounds that the penalty which was sought to be stayed, is illegal and Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are ultra vires the Constitution and, therefore, no demand could have been issued against the petitioners.3. The basic argument of learned counsel for the petitioners for challenging the vires of Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is based on a judgment of the Madras High Court in the matter of Kumari A....
Macson Marbles Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC270; 2000(115)ELT317(Raj)
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. This writ petition raises a question whether the Petitioner-firm is liable to be saddled with the liability of excise duty which were due against M/s. Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd. - the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner-firm.2. M/s. Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd. established a unit with the assistance of the Corporation at Rajnagar, District Rajaamand. Having gone into default, the unit was taken over by the Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter the Act of 1951). Having taken possession of the facilities of M/s. Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd., the Corporation held an auction and in this auction petitioner's bid was accepted and an agreement was executed between the Corporation and the petitioner-firm that the facilities of M/s. Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd. shall stand transferred to the petitioner-firm subject to condition that it will clear the liabilities of R.S.E.B. and P.H.E.D. and the dues of RIICO will be cleared by...
Deep Darshan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. U.i.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC645; 1997(1)WLN336
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This revision concerns the interpretation of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. More particularly it raises two questions (i) whether Section 143 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short the Act) is merely a part of the adjudicative law and deals with procedure alone? (ii) where requirement of two months notice is attracted, a premature suit is not maintainable and can be dismissed at the out set?2. The relevant facts of the case are for present purposes to be taken to be these. Plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 (for short the plaintiff) on August 13, 1996, instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant petitioner for short the defendant), the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short LIC) and the State of Rajasthan (for short the State) in the trial court. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that land in question was allotted to the defendant by the State on April 25, 1991....
Tihsan Chand Vikarm Chand JaIn Vs. Mohan Lal Chhipa
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN78
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 23.2.1996, held that there was no ground to grant of leave to defend the suit. This order was challenged by the defendant-petitioner in Civil Rev. No. 370/96. This Court vide order dated 29.2.1996, directed as below:I direct that in case the petitioner submits bank-guarantee of Rs. 10,000/-and gives solvent-security for the rest of the amount claimed in the suit, within a period of one month, before the trial court, he is permitted to defend the suit.The trial court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the Court, the petitioner submitted bank-guarantee and solvent security within the aforesaid period but the guarantee-was submitted before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaipur City, Jaipur, and not before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur City, Jaipur. Lateron, on the application of the defendant petitioner, th...
Laxman Singh Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC98; 1997(1)WLN76
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order. Annex. 3, dated 13.4.94. According to the petitioner. He had worked with the Department for 5 years i.e. from 1.1.86 to 1.4.91. His services were terminated as per the petitioner in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. A demand was raised on the respondents and the Labour Authorities were moved for referring the matter to the appropriate Labour Court. The Conciliation Officer acting under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the Act hereinafter) had sent the failure report. On receipt of the failure report, the Government had passed the impugned order to the fact that it has been found by the Conciliation Officer that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service. Therefore, no dispute exists between the parties. This order has been challenged by the petitioner.2. The respondents had filed the reply and has tried to support the order on the ground that in case the p...
Lalit Kumar Vs. Life Insurance Corpn. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC635; 1997(1)WLN80
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner is a holder of Bachelor's Degree in Commerce having passed the examination in the year 1990 as per certificate Annex. 2, and he is also a physically handicapped person inasmuch as he is suffering because of polio in both his legs. He has got. his name registered with the Rojgar Sewa Nideshalay (Central Physically Handicapped Registration Cell), Rajasthan, Jaipur for getting employment out. of the reserved quota meant for physically handicapped persons. He has also been issued a certificate of registration as required under Rules 5 and 6 and the Rajasthan Physically Handicapped Employment Rules, 1976 vide Annex. 3 attached to the writ petition. He states that the respondent Corporation had issued an advertisement in the month of September, 1992 and invited applications from the eligible persons for filling up 61 posts of Assistants and out of these 61 vacancies 3% vacancies were reserved for physically handicapped persons. Copy of that advertisement has b...
Abdul Majid Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC281; 1997(1)WLN74
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner was allotted land in 1977. In 1982 a complaint was made that he was not cultivating the land, therefore, enquiry was ordered. On the basis of report of Tehsildar that he was not cultivating the land the order of cancellation of allotment was passed by the allotment authority on 3.6.87. Said order was passed in the presence of the advocate of the petitioner, but the same was not communicated to him. The petitioner came to know about the order only on 12.10.87 when he was told by Patwari. Immediately on the next date i.e. on 13.10.87 he proceeded to Bikaner and tried to contract his advocate, but could not find his advocate, therefore, he contracted another advocate and applied for the copy of the order which he obtained on 15.10.87 and at the earliest point of time without wasting any further time he filed appeal within two days i.e. on 17.10.87 before the appellate authority i.e. Revenue Appellate Authority wh...
Shiv Lal Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj93; 1997(2)WLC203; 1997(1)WLN56
A.S. Godara, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 39(i)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and decree dated 6-5-1988 passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh in Claim Case No. 56/80, where by a decree for Rs. 17,942.53 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 24-7-1976 till the date of realization, besides a sum of Rs. 500/- as expenses for arbitration proceedings on the basis of award dated 17-11-1980, has been passed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent -Food Corporation of India (for short 'the Corporation) invited tenders for handling and transportation of goods of Food Storage Depot, Chanderia for a period of two years beginning from 15-3-1974 to 14-3-1976. The appellant (Contractor) also submitted his tender and the same was accepted and the acceptance was communicated by the respondent vide his telegram dated 19/20-12-1973 and thereby the appellan...
Cimmco Ltd. Vs. Shyam Mohan Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj180; 1997(1)WLC581
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The core question that arises for consideration in this revision, is whether before giving a direction to a party to make discovery of document, should the Court satisfy itself that the document is relevant for proper adjudication of the matter involved in the suit?2. This question has emerged in the following circumstances-(i) The plaintiff non-petitioner (for short plaintiff) instituted a suit for declarationand permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner (for short defendant) in the trial Court. It was prayed that the retirement order dated October 31, 1991 be declared as null and void and ineffective and the defendant be restrained from retiring the plaintiff before October 31, 1998. The prayer was sought on the ground that all Executives in the defendant-Company retired at the age of 65 years and not at the age of 58 years. Executives Sarvshri R. K. Goyal, K. N. Pathak and Bhupendra Singh were retired after attaining the age of 65 years wher...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »