Rajasthan Court February 2000 Judgments
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Niwasi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC52; 2002ACJ475; 2000(2)WLC560
Arun Madan, J.1. This is a misc. appeal against the award dated 30.6.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baran in Claim Case No. 78 of 1997, whereby claim was allowed for compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,59,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment thereof in favour of claimants, who are dependants (mother, wife, minor three sons and one daughter) of Rampal Meena who died in a motor accident, which took place on 22.4.1997 while travelling in the appellant Corporation's bus No. RJ-14/2030 from Bamla to Baran.2. Heard Mr. Sudesh Bansal for Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation. The impugned award is assailed on three counts, inter alia, (1) that, the multiplier of 17 has not been correctly applied by the Tribunal in view of the fact that the age of deceased was 30 years though post-mortem report states his age as 35 years, (2) that it was a case of contributory negligence of the pas...
Tag this Judgment!Roop Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC481; 2000(2)WLN165
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. It is often said that death now-a-days, is too cheap. A pathetic, morbid question is asked every morning, every day, so who died today? If a Government servant dies, one of the dependents of his family is provided with the compassionate appointment to help the family in getting over the sudden tragedy. In order to regulate the recruitment of the dependents of deceased Government servants on compassionate grounds the Governor of Rajasthan enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short the Rules of 1996). These Rules came into force from the date of their publication in the Rajasthan Rajpatra i.e. January 25, 1997. With effect from April 21, 1999, Rules 5 and 10(3), (5) and (6) have been amended.2. All the petitioners before me are the dependents of deceased Government servants but they have been deni...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer, Phed and ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR505]; (2001)IIILLJ787Raj
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. Heard Mr. Anil Bhandari for the petitioners and Mr. Sachin Arya for the respondents.2. This petition challenges an award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioners, did not appear before the Labour Court, after once entering appearance, and as a result the proceedings were taken ex parte against the petitioners and award was also passed ex parte.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on his own saying the respondent employee had not completed 240 days of working in a year and, therefore, benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could not have been given to him. The learned counsel submitted that in paragraph 10 of the award, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has found that the respondent employee was paid for 26 days each in the months of May 1992, June 1992, July 1992, August 1992 and September 1992. According to the learned counsel, on calculation of the actual working days put in by the respondent employee...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Rajasthan Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC269(Raj)
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. This revision under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is directed against the order dated October 28, 1994 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are : that the assessee-respondent sold goods vide Bilk Nos. 1512 and 1513 dated March 29, 1985 to Silkyrock India Private Limited, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs. 48,298 and Rs. 66,710. These goods were despatched on March 29, 1985. The consignment was shown as 'self' and the documents were sent through Canara Bank. The purchaser retired the documents from bank on April 10, 1985 and thereafter, took delivery of the goods.3. The purchaser was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on April 1, 1985. C form was despatched on May 3, 1985 from Bangalore. The assessing officer vide his reassessment order dated November 27, 1989 under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Aryan Zinc Products Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Ii
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: [2000]119STC443(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.The short issue raised in this case is whether the by-product obtained on application of manufacturing process along with primarily product can be considered to be goods manufactured by the manufacturer within the meaning of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The question has arisen in the facts and circumstances that petitioner-dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act manufactures goods from iron sheets. He has established a new industrial unit and was issued eligibility certificate for availing the benefits under Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987. In the course of manufacturing the end-product the assessee also obtained scrap as a by-product of his manufacturing activity. He sells such by-product obtained by him in the market. The assessing authority was of the view that a dealer is not envisaged to avail benefit of exemption under the Incentive Scheme in respect of sales of by-product. According to him it was not a goods ...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. P.G. Fiiles Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC203(Raj); 2000(2)WLN360
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. This revision under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is directed against the order dated August 22, 1995 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal No. 20 of 1992 along with Appeals Nos. 19 and 21 of 1992.2. The respondent was subjected to a provisional assessment in respect of sale of aluminium foils, which were sold by it by charging sales tax at 1 per cent. The assessing officer was of the view that it was taxable at 4 per cent and, therefore, he directed the respondent-assessee to make payment of difference of tax vide his provisional assessment order dated December 19, 1990.3. Against the above provisional assessment order dated December 19, 1990, the assessee-respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who after hearing both the parties allowed the appeal vide his order dated May 4, 1991 and set aside the provisional assessment order dated December 19, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanna Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1204; 2000(2)WLC485
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. Petitioners Dhanna Ram, Sohan Lal and Bhaga Ram preferred this revision petition as they were dissatisfied with the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated 10-5-1991 by which their appeal was dismissed and judgment of conviction was upheld. The petitioners were convicted by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nohar and sentenced as follows :- All the petitioners Under Section 447, IPC to one month rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- each. All the petitioners Under Section 324, IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- each. Bhaga Ram Under Section 326, IPC to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-. Sohan & Dhanna Under Section 326/34, IPC to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment.2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that statement of Ganga Ram was record...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Tax Officer, Anti Evasion Vs. JaIn Plaster Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: [2006]143STC48(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The short question raised in this case is whether the process applied by the respondent-dealer to produce gypsum powder at the quarry site can be considered to be an activity of manufacture so that he can avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax on the purchases made by him under Section 5-C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. It is the case of the dealer that he purchased gypsum from quarry owner by giving a declaration under Section 5-C to the effect that gypsum will be used as raw material for manufacturing another commodity and thereafter he prepares powder thereof of different gradation, through the process of dehydration, the end-product is sold to the fertilisers and to the other industries. He also claims that he manufactures plaster of paris from the gypsum.3. The assessing officer found it to be a mere processing activity not amounting to manufacture because according to him the only process involved is grindi...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Vishvakarma Shilp Karyalaya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN369
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This revision under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is directed against the order dated 26.7.1995 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that in this case, no question of law arises for determination by this Court. The Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal has affirmed the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), on the basis of the relevant material before it that the respondent-assessee has merely executed the contract for installing the cooling plant at respective Cinema Talkies and has not sold the cooling plants to the respective Cinema Talkies at Chinwada and Kotkada in Madhya Pradesh and Sriganganagar in Rajasthan. Since the above findings has been reached after due consideration of material before it, it cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse.3. In this view of the matter, no interference is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›