Rajasthan Court September 1999 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopal Krishan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj98; 2000(1)WLC528
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner-State of Rajasthan is the same in all these petitions whereas the private respondents are different, and separate orders on different dates have been passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Ex.-Officio Collector (Stamps), Blkaner calling upon the private respondents to pay up the deficit Stamp duty and separate orders have been passed by the Board of Revenue in all the matters whereby the Board of Revenue accepted the revision petitions filed by the private respondents. The common question of law is involved in all these petitions, therefore, all these petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. In all these cases, the Deputy Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Bikaner submitted applications to the Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Ex-Officio Collector (Stamps), Bikaner (for short 'D.I.G.') under Section 47-A of the Rajasthan Stamps Act and the Rules framed thereunder stating that the sale deeds executed ...
Modern Suiting Shramik Sangh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR141]; (2000)IIILLJ1211Raj; 2000(2)WLC218
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated January 8, 1989 of the Sate of Rajasthan, declining to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act of 1947).2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the State of Rajasthan vide order dated February 16, 1987 directed all the Textile Mills (Kapada Mills) of Rajasthan to pay interim increment of Rs. 7.50 per labour per month with effect from January 1, 1987. At the same time the workmen were bound not to go on strike in relation to demand about benefit of increment in the existing pay scales. An award was also passed by the Arbitrator (District Collector, Alwar) regarding some disputes between Management and the Workmen on September 27, 1987. The Management of respondent No. 2 while accepting the award took the plea that the order dated February 16, 1987 under Section 10-K of the Act of 1947 is not applicable upon the workmen for the reason that respo...
Ram Chandra Joshi and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1660; 2000(2)WLC739
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. All these petitions have been filed against the order of removal of Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors/Additional Government Advocates working in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the District Courts subordinate to it. As common questions of law are involved, all these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases have variance to some extent and, thus, in brief, the facts of each case would be considered separately for disposal of the case, but first legal issues are being examined.2. At this stage it may be mentioned that petitioners had been appointed under the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') read with the provisions of The Rajasthan Law and Judicial Department Manual, 1952 (for short, 'the Manual') and tenure of some of them had been extended for a definite or indefinite period.3...
M/S. Raj. Mining and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC557; 2000(2)WLC139; 2000(3)WLN553
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. These matters raise a common question as to whether Excavators are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short the Taxation Act) and are accordingly taxable thereunder.(2). Extra ordinary jurisdiction applications were filed before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Jaipur by the petitioners. All such applications stood transferred to this court after abolition of the Tribunal. The grievance expressed by the petitioners in all these petitions is that the excavators are not liable to levy of tax under the provisions of the Taxation Act and Rules made thereunder.(3). The facts of STR No. 233 of 1999 are necessary to be incorporated to understand the controversy. The petitioner company required to procure large number of machines and equipments related to excavation and earth moving. Therefore Escorts JCB Excavator and Loader was purchased exclusively for mining purposes. It is averred that Excavator is a Machin...
Kundan Mal Vs. District Collector, Pali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj152; 2000(4)WLC166
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner's father purchased 48 x 56 square feets land out of a pattasud land measuring 1125.33 square yards in the municipal limits of Sumerpur from Beera Kesha and others and another piece of land admeasuring 56 x 48 square feets from Ibrahim s/o Moosaji. According to the petitioner, a regular patta was also issued in the name of the petitioner and his father thereafter for the land admeasuring 60 x 72 square feets and for the remaining land of 6 x 72 square feets, a patta was issued in favour of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat. Thus, according to the petitioner, they purchased the land from the private owners and are in possession of the same since long.2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') for grant of permission to raise construction over that land along with the plan. According to the petitioner, the respondent Municipality treated that application for grant of permission ...
Satya NaraIn Vs. Mukesh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN478
Shivaraj v. Patil, C.J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 5.7.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2203/99 in which the appellant was respondent and had appeared as Caveator at the time when the writ petition was being heard for admission. The order under challenge has been passed on the stay application filed by the writ petitioner respondent in the appeal.2. Learned counsel for the appellant was asked a pointed question by the court as to how an appeal is maintainable against an order passed on the stay application.3. Learned counsel for the appellant asserted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the appellant was only a caveator and was supplied the copy of the writ petitioner only during the course of arguments. No indulgence was granted to the appellant to prepare reply and thereafter argue the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant has further asserted that the order under cha...
Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ502Raj
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The learned single Judge dismissed the S.B. Civil Writtion No. 17/1997 filed by the appellants on the ground that the disputed questions of fact arise for consideration. In the view he took, the learned Judge stated that the appellants may approach the Government to make reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 preferably within a period of three months, without resorting to the proceedings of conciliation. This order was passed in the presence of the respondent State Government being one of the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 2049 : 1987(4) SCC 634 single Judge ought to have granted the relief sought for by the appellants in the writ petition. According to the learned counsel, disputed questions of facts do not arise as the case is covered by the same Cen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›