Rajasthan Court December 1997 Judgments

D.K. Woollen Industries Private Vs. Additional Commissioner

Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan

1. This is an application under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 directed against order dated October 6, 1997 of the Additional Commissioner (Anti-evasion), Commercial Taxes, rejecting the present applicant's application made under Section 41 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 ("the 1994 Act").2. The applicant-assessee is a dealer in wool, woollen yarn and hand-made woollen pile carpets and the assessing authority (AA) having jurisdiction in normal course is the Commercial Taxes Officer (CTO), Circle-B, Bikaner who by an order dated August 12, 1996 had finalised the assessment up to March 31, 1994 in the course of which the assessee's claim that his turnover in woollen hand-made pile carpets manufactured out of tax-paid raw wool was exempt from tax under a notification of the State Government dated March 23, 1989 issued under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 ("the 1954 Act") exempting the sale and purchase, inter alia, of hand-made woollen pile...

U.P. Hotels Limited and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: (1999)ILLJ597Raj; 1998(2)WLC306

ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. M/s. U.P.Hotels Limited, Varanasi and Hotel Clarks Amer, Jaipur have filed the present writ petition for issuance of a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated June 16, 1980 (Annexure-VII), October 5, 1983 (Annexure-XI) passed by Respondent No. 2 and order dated May 4, 1981 (Annexure-VIII) passed by Respondent No. 3. M/s.U.P.Hotels Limited (hereinafter called as 'the petitioner') is a company registered under the Companies Act. Its head quarter is situated at New Delhi. It has got hotels at Varanasi, Agra and had also established Hotel Clarks Amer at Jaipur. It is stated that the Petitioner No. 1 is a company with multifarious activities i.e. to lend money, to establish or to promote establishments, in which the company may be interested to enter into any arrangements with the Government or authority and other activities.2. It is admitted that the hotel and restaurants fall under the provision of Employees' Provident Funds Act. The Petit...

Brijendra Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1998(2)WLC456; 1998(1)WLN487

N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This petition involves a short but important question of law. The question is: whether denial of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Marketing Officer merely on the ground of pendency of two criminal cases is legally sound? In other words whether action of the respondents denying appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution? By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to give him appointment, with all consequential benefits, on the post of Junior Marketing Officer with effect from 7.11.1996 when persons junior to him were given appointment.2. Factual position is not much in dispute. Pursuant to an advertisement No. F. 7(26)/RE/94-95 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC') inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up five vacancies of Junior Marketing Officer by direct recruitment, petitioner appl...

Chief Personnel Manager, Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Dutt Sadana an ...

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ119Raj; 1998(2)WLC232

Arun Madan, J. 1. The petitioner who is Chief Personnel Manager now designated as Chief Manager, Indian Relation & Human Resources, Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., has moved this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order dated January 15,1986 of the Authority constituted under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') whereby, the Authority had directed reinstatement in services of the petitioner-company of respondent No. 1 with backwages w.e.f. the date of termination i.e. August 8,1984 with all consequential benefits on the grounds inter alia that the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a probationer and since during the probationary period, his services were not found satisfactory, no reason was required to be assigned by the Management of the petitioner-Company before terminating his services.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition briefly stated are that the petitio...

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Sadhna Sharma

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: I(1998)DMC636

D.C. Dalela, J.1. The marriage of the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife), was solemnized on 2.12.1984, as per the Hindu customs and rites. According to the appellant, after the marriage, the behaviour of the respondent, was not proper and she started causing cruelty towards the appellant and his family members. She filed a divorce-petition on 31.5.1988 and levelled all kinds of baseless and unscrupulous allegations, e.g., that the appellant was a drunkard; was a womaniser; and used to beat her etc. On 26.8.1988, the respondent moved an application before the learned Family Court, Jaipur, praying that she wanted to withdraw the petition for divorce. On the same date, the learned Family Court accepted the application and dismissed her petition for divorce, as withdrawn. The appellant took back the respondent in the matrimonial home and he tried to sort out the matter and attempted to work out a peaceful living together. Nevertheless, the respondent persisted with her habits an...

Gajia and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1998CriLJ3207

ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a revision against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated 2-7-1996 by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioner and maintained his conviction and sentence under Section 363, IPC. It is relevant to mention that this revision petition was filed by Gajia as well as by Khetia but during its pendency Gajia expired, so it is only Khetia whose case is to be considered.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length. 3. The facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution, are that on 1-5-83 Baldev Singh reported to SHO of Police Station, Ahore vide Ex. P/1 that his son Bhanwar Singh aged 15 years, student of class VIIIth was missing since 22-4-1983. He had gone to appear in his school examination but did not return. He had searched out in different villages in district Churu but the boy was not available. He had come to know in village Harji that Mohanlal, Khetaram, Gajia, Kantia and ...

Amer Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1998(3)WLC710; 1998(1)WLN477

Amaresh ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 3.12.1997 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 4. Jodhpur in criminal case No. 747 of 1992 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate declined to grant permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. on the ground that the offence was not compoundable according to law. It is not disputed that the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is not compoundable, therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the compromise has been effected between the parties and they have started living together at Bombay after compromise and the statement of the complainant (Smt. Chandra) has already been recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate and in her statement she has not supported the...

Satyavan Chaplot Vs. Rajendra

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)868; 1998CriLJ2309; 1998(2)WLC190; 1998(1)WLN474

ORDERA.K. Singh, J.1. Heard and perused the record.2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 17-2-97 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur in complaint case No. 76/96. By the aforesaid order, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the notice served by the non-petitioner under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is not invalid and he rejected the petitioner's prayer for dropping the proceedings instituted against him.3. The facts of the case so far as they are necessary for the disposal of this petition may be summarised below.4. Non-petitioner Rajendra filed a complaint in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur on 24-6-95. According to the averments made in the complaint, the non-petitioner-complainant carries on the business in Udaipur and deals with automotive and industrial lubricants and petroleum articles. It is alleged that the accused-petitioner purchased certa...

Magan Alias Magnia Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1998CriLJ1759

ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for giving effect to the various sentences on conviction passed by competent court to run concurrently.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.3. For the purpose of convenience, it may be stated that the accused petitioner was convicted in the following cases:--1. Regular Criminal Case No. 448/88 (State v. Magan and Anr.)Convicted for offences punishable under Section 457/75 and 380/75 IPC) and sentenced as under vide judgment dated 17-11-95:--Under Section 457/75 IPC: One year S. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-.Under Section 380/75 IPC: One year S. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-2. Regular Criminal Case No. 199/91 (State v. Magan)Convicted for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC vide judgment dated 2-12-95 and sentenced to undergo one year S. I.3. Regular Criminal Case No. 200/91 (State v. Magan)Convicted for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC vide judgme...

Likhama Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1998CriLJ2635; 1998(2)WLC350; 1997(2)WLN713

ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.2. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 27-8-1997 and the order dated 21-10-1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in sessions case No. 5/97 State v. Himmata Ram. By his order dated 27-8-1997 the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to grant adjournment under Section 309 Cr. P. C. for production of witnesses and rejected the application moved by the Additional Public Prosecutor for issuing process against two witnesses. By the order dated 21-10-1997 the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 311 Cr. P.C.3. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the disposal of the petition may be summarised as below :4. In session case No. 5/97 State v. Himmata Ram, Himmata Ram is facing trial on charge...