Rajasthan Court February 2000 Judgments
Vijay Kumar Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2920; 2000(4)WLC84
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. The instant revision petition has been filed by petitioner Vijay Kumar who was convicted by learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar for offences under Sections 28(2) and 37(2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1961'). He was given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. An appeal was preferred by him which was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar on 15-12-1990 by which the petitioner was acquitted from charge of Section 28(2) of the Act of 1961 but was held liable for contravening the bye-laws and as such conviction under Section 37(2) of the Act of 1961 was upheld.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 37(2) of the Act of 1961 is illegal as it provide...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. G.S. Bali Vs. Babulal JaIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC463; 2000(2)WLN13
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 9.4.1996 passed by learned ADJ No. 3. Jaipur City, Jaipur in CMA No. 29/95 against the order dated 2.3.1995 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaipur City (East) Jaipur in Case No. 304/94 by which the said court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.2. The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that the petitioner is a retired Lt. Colonel from the armed forces and after his retirement in the year 1982, he established a Tannery in the name and style of Excusite Enterprizes in Faridabad (Haryana) as a partnership concern. In August 1992, the petitioner was introduced to respondent No. 1 who is NRI. The latter had approached the petitioner for technical and administrative help to re-start the sick industry namely: Rajasthan State Tannery Tonk Pvt. Ltd. at Tonk. He also asked the petitioner to join his company as above. The petitioner accepted this ...
Tag this Judgment!Charbhuja Sugar Works Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC395; 2007(2)WLN641
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the District Level Screening Committee (for short 'D.L.S.C.') dt. 30th October, 1991 as communicated vide letter dt. 31st October, 1991 (Annexure-3) by which the eligibility certificate issued to the petitioner under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 (for short 'Scheme of 1987') on the recommendation of Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur (Annexure-6) and the order passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal dt. 29th April, 1987 (Annexure-7) affirming the said order on appeal.3. The only ground on which the order cancelling the eligibility certificate is challenged is that the same has been made in breach of principles of natural justice without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued a eligibility certificate on 24th June, 1989 under the Scheme of 1987 as a new industrial unit manufacturing th...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN586
ORDERVerma, J.(1). The only question which arises in the present writ petition is whether the respondents are competent to take over the possession of part of Khasra No. 35 situated in village Bhojpura, Jaipur near Jaipur as deemed to have been acquired without issuing any notification u/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was applicable at the relevant time and also whether if by mistake or otherwise by in-advertance compensation is determined for the land in question in the award even though not acquired, which could not have been so determined for the reason that the land was never so acquired by any notification and the said compensation having been paid to the petitioner or his predecessors, which compensation as now admitted and not denied, as a matter of fact, stands refunded to the respondents and the respondents having accepted back the above said compensation, are still entitled to say that the land measuring 3 Bighas 10 Biswas out of Khasra No. 35 which Khasra number measu...
Tag this Judgment!Lohariya Ram Baroll Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN204
J.C. Verma, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred for issuing a direction for awarding to the petitioner firm-contract of collection of excess royalty on the terms and conditions of the auction dated 21.3.1991 and in the alternative for writ of mandamus directing the respondents that the money deposited by the firm M/s Lohariya Ram amounting to Rs. 10,67,633/- be returned to the firm with interest @12%.2. A notification was issued for holding a bid in the Bari and Basori, Tehsil Dholpur for collection of excess royalty for excavation of sand stone in Bari and Basori. Tehsil Dholpur. The auction was held on 21st March, 1991. The petitioner was highest bidder. The notification of auction is dated 28th Jan., 1991 published on 7th Feb., 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that he had participated in the auction through one Loharia Ram, a partner of the firm M/s Lohariya Ram as per the partner-ship deed. His highest auction was at Rs. 51,05,600/- and as per the condition of the auct...
Tag this Judgment!Lrs. of Raghunath Singh Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN107
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector dated 18.11.1976 (Annex-6), Revenue Appellate Authority dated 12-4.1982 (Annex-7) and Board of Revenue dated 9.12.1982 and 20.12.1982 (Annexs-9 and 10).2. It is stated that one Thakur Ram Singh son of Thakur Kishan Singh, resident of village Bhankhari Tehsil Rajgarh, real uncle of the petitioner had bequeathed all his properties (movable or Immovable) in favour of the petitioner by a registered Will dated 26.11,1965. The testator died on 9.1.1996. Mutation of the agricultural lands comprising of Khasra Nos. 42, 44, 46 and 48 was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner.3. One Hari Singh, brother of the petitioner claimed to be adopted son of the testator. Hari Singh has since died and the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are legal representatives of Hari Singh. He also produced a will and, therefore, the petitioner. filed a suit for permanent injunction against him u/s 188 of the Rajasthan Ten...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Deptt. Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN372
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dated 20th July, 1998 by which the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer was affirmed.3. The respondent is a manufacturer of zinc ingots and zinc lead etc. The period for which the assessment was made is financial year 1985-86, ending on 31st March, 1986, During this period, the assessee had sold goods to National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited Transmission Unit, Jammu, against which the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited Transmission Unit, Jammu, has given 'D' forms to the respondent. For the previous financial year 1984-85, the case of the assessee that M/s. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited was agent of Salal Transmission Construction Division, Jammu, which is a department of J & K. Govt. and therefore, was entitled to purchase good...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Pada Meat Merchants Association and anr. Vs. Municipal Council ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN284
J.C. Verma, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner Jaipur Pada Meat Merchants Association (here-in-after called as 'the Association') as brought out in the writ petition is that the action of the respondents in issuing the notification dated 8.2.1989 published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) on 9.2.1989 whereby the word 'buffalo' has been deleted from the list of animals to be slaughtered in the Slaughter Houses under the Jaipur Municipal Corporation is not valid and prayer is made to allow the petitioner association to slaughter the buffaloes as well in the Slaughter Houses maintained by the Municipal Corporation as per regulations and further to quash the notice issued in the month of July 1989 to certain person for not allowing the slaughtering the buffaloes (here-in-after called 'pada').2. Vide notification dated 2.7.1979 published on 5.7.1979, copy of which is attached as Annexure-1 issued Under Section 295 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the buffalo animal was i...
Tag this Judgment!Surender Kumar Verma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN681
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since identical questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. All the petitioners were appointed as Teacher Grade III and they were asked to furnish undertaking that they would work for 10 years at their respective place of posting and would not make request for transfer to any other district. In case such request for transfer is made before expiry of 10 years, they would deposit Rs. 20,000/- with the State Treasury. All the petitioners executed the bonds incorporating aforequoted undertaking.3. It appears that immediately after joining at their respective places of posting, the petitioners made request seeking transfer at their desired places. Some of the petitioners deposited Rs. 20,000/- with the State Treasury. However, the petitioners got success in seeking transfers at the desired places. But suddenly the State Government passed an order on June 28, 1999 imposing condition No. 3 that tra...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Gajjan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN462
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This State appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.1.1978 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar acquitting the accused respondents of offence under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 and 27 of te Arms Act.2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW/1 Avtar Singh lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P/1 at Police Station Anoopgarh on 24th May, 1975 at 3.15 P.M. stating interalia that he alongwith the deceased Hardayal Singh and Nirmal Singh after taking lunch at about 1.30 P.M. had gone to meet his father-in-law Ajayab Singh at the village 58 G.B. PW/2 Suchha Singh also followed them but he was 22-25 steps behind them. When they reached near the 'culvert' all the accused persons Gajjan Singh, Kalwant Singh, Surjan Singh, Dalip Singh and Swroop Singh surrounded them. Seeing them, PW/2 Succha Singh ran away towards his house. They also tried to run away. Nirmal Singh tried to run away but, he was hit by a gun fire. It was also stated that Nirmal Singh tried to run away b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »