Rajasthan Court January 2000 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner Vs. Karya Palak Engineer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2000
Reported in: [2006]143STC663(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. These four revisions raise an identical question arising out of the common order dated July 15, 1996, passed in respect of different assessment periods by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in the appeals filed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion, Bikaner, against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), by which he has set aside the penalty levied under Section 16(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act of 1954.2. The facts giving rise to these revisions are that the respondent which is a department of Union of India, viz., the Central Public Works Department, supplies material to its contractors for the purpose of execution of contracts for it. While the respondent-assessee is claiming that such supplies are not sales and value of goods cannot be included in the 'taxable turnover' by the department, the contention of the Revenue is that such supplies are sale. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee by not returning suc...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar JaIn Vs. Firm Suganchand Radhey Shyam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj226; 2000(4)WLC111
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. By this application No. 145/90 filed under Order 41 Rule 17 & 19, CPC, applicant Santosh Kumar Jain (defendant appellant) prayed for recalling judgment dated 12-11-90 passed by another bench ofthis Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 7/82 for short CFA No. 7/82). 2. This Court by its judgment dated 12-11-90 decided on merits and partly allowed aforesaid CFA No. 7/82 directing that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 39,554.11p. (as disclosed in Exh. 20) with interest @ 12% p.a. from 4-8-69 Bill payment from the defendant. This Court considered relevant pleadings, evidence of the parties and also the impugned judgment dt. 28-5-81 passed in Civil Suit No. 60/79 (2/72) by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City. Jaipur against-which aforesaid CFA No. 7/ 82 was preferred. However, this Court by 63 judgment decided aforesaid CFA No. 7/82 in the absence of the learned counsel for both the parties. Hence this restoration application. 3. The contention of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rambagh Palace Hotel Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR134]; (2000)ILLJ1165Raj; 2000(2)WLC338; 2000(2)WLN449
J.C. Verma, J.1. The writ petitioner-Management of Rambagh Palace Hotel Limited has filed this writ petition in the pending industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur with the submission that certain issues be decided by the Industrial Tribunal as preliminary issues and the main dispute be not entered into evidence whereas the Industrial Tribunal had in its impugned order dated October 28, 1998 (Annexure-20) has observed that, even the issues which the management want to be decided as preliminary issues require evidence and, therefore, to resolve the complete controversy between the parties it was necessary that all the issues as framed should be decided at one and the same time after recording evidence of both sides. The petitioner is aggrieved against this interim order and wants to stall the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal onmerits on the reference made by the State ofRajasthan in regard to the dispute raised by theworkmen of the petitioner Under Se...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN251
J.C. Verma, J.1. All the above-said writ petitions involve the same question of law and are being decided together. Writ petitions have been filed by the Khatedars or the legal heirs of the Khatedars in the respective writ petitions who had been subjected to the declaration of land ceilings as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 and the rules framed therein.2. All the writ petitions belong to district Kota where their lands were situated at the time of declaration of the ceilings. The petitioners state that as per Section 30-C of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the ceiling area for a family consisting of five or less than five members is to be thirty standard acres of land provided that where the members of a family exceed five, the ceiling area in relation thereto shall be increased for each additional member by five standard acres, so however that it does not exceed sixty standard acres of land. Standard acres' has ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ganpati Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN177
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted statement of petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and medical certificate. According to the medical certificate issued by the Medical Jurist, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, the girl is said to be 18-19 years of age. A copy of this certificate has been served upon the counsel for the State. The learned Counsel for the State has also been served a copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the statement, she stated her age to be 19 years. She stated that she is not willing to go with her father. She also controverted the stand of her father that she has been eloped by Ghanshyam. She further stated in her statement that there had been no coercion and force used on her.3. In view of the statement of the girl, Smt. Ganpati under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the certificate of Medical Jurist, this Court feels that girl has attained the age of discretion. As and when, a gi...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Ambika Cement Pipe Factory
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC442(Raj); 2000(4)WLC115
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These two petitions raise a common question to be determined hence are being heard and decided together.2. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dated July 16, 1997 in Appeals Nos. 100 of 1995 and 101 of 1995. These appeals arose out of assessment orders made on January 15, 1994 in respect of assessment periods 1982-83 and 1983-84 respectively. The Tribunal has found that these two assessment orders being time-barred under Sub-section (2) of Section 10-B, as the same were not made within two years from the date of appellate order, in compliance of which they were made. The Tribunal has not examined the appeal on merit of the assessment.3. For determination of the question whether the orders dated January 15, 1994, passed in each of the revisions were time-barred, the facts necessary for the present purpose may be noticed. In respect of two assessment periods, the original assessment orders were set aside by the Deputy Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Chhajer Vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj166; 2000(2)WLC110
1. The petitioner who is a student, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed that respondent-University be directed to give admission to the petitioner in LL.B. Part I course in the current session of 1999-2000. In short writ of mandamus is prayed for by the petitioner in this petition as he was denied admission in LL.B. Part I course by the respondent-University only on the ground that he had less than 50% marks when he originally applied for admission on 9-7-99.2. The petitioner initially took admission in B.Com. Part I course in the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur in the year 1996 and completed his B.Com. Final examination in the year 1999. His examination was held on 31-5-99 and the result of the same was declared within less than one month i.e. 28-6-99. As per mark-sheet he secured 49.38% marks. Within the prescribed time i.e. less than 10 days he applied for re-evaluation of marks on 7-7-99. Last date for getting admission in LL.B...
Tag this Judgment!Chhagan Kanwar Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj238; 2000(2)WLC231
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, Smt. Chhagan Kanwar Rathore (petitioner) has sought direction for quashing : (1) show cause notice dt. 17-3-99 (Ann.1) and (2) order dt. 21-7-99 (Ann. 4), by which she has been suspended from the posts of Chairman and Member of Municipality, Sarwar by the State Govt. in exercise of power u/S. 63 (4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Factual matrix necessary to decide the controversy raised at the bar is thus. Undoubtedly, the petitioner in an election held in the year 1995 was elected as Member of the Municipal Board, Sarwar (for brevity the Board) and whereupon she had been also elected as Chairperson in August 1995 and since then she has been Chairperson of the Board. The petitioner states that she belongs to the Bhartia Janta Party; that in 14th Assembly Elections in the Rajasthan State, Congres (I) Party members formed new government and since she being member of Bhartia Janta Party (BJP) oppose...
Tag this Judgment!Rudhmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj160; 2000(4)WLC124
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. By way of this writ petition, Rudhmal son of Chunnilal (petitioner) has sought as writ of prohibition for directing the Jaipur Development Authority (respondent No. 2) not to:--(i) dispossess the petitioner from 10 blghas of land situated in Bir Sarkari of Jhotwara Patwar area Tehsil Jaipur. (ii) interfere with his possession and cultivation of the said land in dispute without acquiring it in accordance with law, and (iii) demolish his thatched sheds, cow sheds and kacha houses existing on the land in dispute.2. The facts relevant for deciding this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the land of Khasra Nos. 187 to 191 and 198 of village Birsarkari of Jhotwara Patwar area of Jaipur tehsil was purchased in the year 1968 by Nanuram (younger brother of Chunnilal who is father of the petitioner) from Chogan son of Kisna Modi. The petitioner's case is thatNanuram having no issues/children was living With his elder brother Chunnilal and therefore, after death of Nan...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board and anr. Vs. Salim Khan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR793]; (2000)IILLJ696Raj; 2000(2)WLC516
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. By this writ petition, the Municipal Board Gangapur City (for short 'Board') seeks a writ of quo-warranto for declaring that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act 1972'), District Sawaimadhopur (respondent No. 2) (for brevity, 'respondent authority') has no jurisdiction in the matter of Salim Khan (respondent No. 1 employee) to pass order dated February 18, 1997 (Annex. 3) in Suit No. PGA 12/96, whereby the respondent authority held that the respondent employee is entitled to get balance payment of Rs. 32,919/- from the petitioner Board with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from May 31, 1995 till payment directed to be made within 30 days.2. Succinctly stated the facts leading to this writ petition are that admittedly the respondentNo. 1 was an employee of the Board having been initially appointed on October 1, 1964 at its Octroi Post guard and he had retired from service on May 31, 1995 when he was paid retireme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »