Rajasthan Court May 2000 Judgments
Suzuki Processors Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN526
Rajesh Balia, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges show cause notices dated 15.1.1999 (Annex. 2) issued by Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-11, and dated 11.6.1999, 30.9.1999, 23.12.1999 & 16.3.2000 by Assistant Commissioner, Bhilwara (Annex. 4 to 7 respectively of the writ petition) covering different periods for which the liability to pay excise duty under the Central Excise Act is sought to be determined and raised against the petitioner from 3rd June, 1997 onwards excluding the period from 24th February, 1998 to 15th December, 1998.2. The facts necessary for the present purposes may be noticed. M/s. Suzuki Processors is a unit of M/s. Suzuki Textiles Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. M/s. Suzuki Textiles Ltd. had set up a process house and a weaving unit under the name Suzuki Processors in village Guda, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara and finances for the purposes were arranged by securing loans from IDBI. According to the case set up by th...
Tag this Judgment!Suzuki Processors Vs. the Commissioner, Central Excise and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(135)ELT29(Raj); 2000(4)WLC286; 2000(3)WLN178
Rajesh Balia, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges show cause notices dated 15.1.1999 (Annex. 2) issued by Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-II, and dated 11.6.1999, 30.9.1999, 23.12.1999 & 16.3.2000 by Assistant Commissioner. Bhilwara (Annexs. 4 to 7 respectively of the writ petition) covering different periods for which the liability to pay excise duty under the Central Excise Act is sought to be determined and raised against the petitioner from 3rd June, 1997 onwards excluding the period from 24th February, 1998 to 15th December 1998.2. The facts necessary for the present purposes may be noticed. M/s. Suzuki Processors is a unit of M/s. Suzuki Textiles Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. M/s. Suzuki Textiles Ltd. had set up a process house and a weaving unit under the name Suzuki Processors in village Guda, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara and finance for the purposes were arranged by securing loans from IDBI. According to the case set up by the...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj348; 2000(3)WLC299; 2000(2)WLN243
1. Heard the learned counsels for the appellants and the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5-3-1999 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2715/97. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 Rajkumar Bhandari was allowed and the appellants as well as respondent No. 2 were directed not to insist for payment of conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. 3. The only question which arises for decision is whether the State Government, can demand any conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act in respect of a land, which was neither allotted nor sold by the Municipality or the State Government. The petitioner submitted an application before the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur seeking permission to construct shops on land measuring 3235 sq. ft, He submitted a blue print of the proposed construction along with his application. The petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!Rashtriya Yuva Udhyog Vs. Smt. Dheeraj Kanwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj353; 2000(4)WLC153
Arun Madan, J. 1. This first appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 19-11-97 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, whereby plaintiffs suit for eviction was decreed. 2. The suit for eviction was filed on the grounds inter alia :-- (1) default in payment of rent; (2) bona fide and reasonable need of the plaintiff to accommodate her son's family; and (3) nuisance and material alteration having been caused by the tenant (defendant) by installing machines in the rented premises without obtaining permission of the plaintiff. The rent of the suit premises (Rs. 650/- per month) was alleged to have been outstanding since 1-12-87. 3. In written statement, the tenant denied the aforesaid allegations of the plaintiff and contested the suit in respect of purported three grounds of eviction. After framing the issues the trial Court recorded the evidence led by both the parties and after hearing their learned Counsel the trial Court recorded its findings on all th...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation and anr. Vs. Rajendra Bhandari and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj9; 2001(4)WLC647; 2000(3)WLN322
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsels for the appellants and the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4-3-1999 passed by the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2918/97. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 Rajendra Kumar was allowed and the appellants as well as respondent No. 2 were directed not to insist for payment of conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. 3. The only question which arises for decision is whether the State Government, can demand any conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act in respect of a land, which was neither allotted nor sold by the Municipality or the State Government. The respondent No. 1 (petitioner), owned shops which are constructed on land measuring 3199 sq. ft. in area. He submitted an application before the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and the permission was granted to him by the Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Momina Begum and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC252; 2002ACJ145; 2000(3)WLC357; 2000(2)WLN608
N.N. Mathur and Amaresh K. Singh, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the judgment dated 3.1.96 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 523 of 1994. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the award dated 28.10.93 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in Claim Case No. WE/67 of 3989 awarding a sum of Rs./ 76,856 as well as interest under Section 4-A(3) and penalty under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be briefly summarised as below:Sayed Khan Pathan was working as a driver on truck No. RSY 8071 belonging to Rafiq Khan (respondent No. 8). The truck was insured with the present appellant, namely, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jodhpur under policy No. 30/00143/90 dated 19.8.1989. On 19.8.1989 at 8 a.m., Sayed Khan Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjanlal Vs. Madan Mohan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC85; 2001(1)WLN510
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition arises out of order dated 7.11.1998 of the Additional Civil Judge (JD) Alwar whereby the petitioner's (defendant's) application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in written statement was declined.2. The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit seeking eviction of the defendant from the rented premises on the grounds of:- (a) default in payment of rent & (b) subletting. The description of the suit shop as given in para 1 of the plaint is exactly the same as described in the rent note dated 12.7.1969 executed between the landlord and tenant. The defendant in para 1 of written statement admitted that he had taken the suit shop with Verandah infront of it on rent and that he had executed the rent note dated 12.7.1969. Admittedly there is no dispute as regards the rented shop. The dispute appears to have been confined only to the question as regards the change allegedly made in nature of the rented premises by the plaintiff in the verandah in fro...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Shrimall Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN359
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Mining Mate. Grade II in the pay scale of Rs. 470-830. He joined his duty on 4.11.1977. The pay scale of the petitioner was revised from time to time and lastly, it was revised to Rs. 1400-2600 on 1.9.1988. The selection scale on completing service of 9-18 and 27 years was made admissible vide order dated 3.6.1994 w.e.f. 25.1.1992. The petitioner was not promoted during the period of 9 years of service and, thereafter, the period of 9 years of service and, thereafter, for further period of 18 years, he became entitled to selection scale in the pay scale of the next promotion post, on his completion of 9 years and 18 years of service. The petitioner was given pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900, on completion of 9 years of his service on the post of Assistant Mines Foreman. On his completing 18 years of service, he was granted pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200. Later on, an order has been issued on October 6, 1999, whereby the selection sc...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation and anr. Vs. Banshi Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN398
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the appellants and the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.4.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3927/98. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 Banshi Lal was allowed and the appellants as well as respondent No. 2 were directed not to insist for payment of conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act.3. The only question which arises for decision is whether the State Government, can demand any conversion charges under Section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act in respect of a land, which ways neither allotted nor sold by the Municipality or the State Government. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 1 Banshi Lal, moved an application before the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur for granting permission to raise construction on the plot of land, which had been purchased by him from Shri Man Mai lodha by r...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pramila Bhatia Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhatia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC251; 2000(3)WLC496; 2000(3)WLN330
ORDERSingh, J.(1). Heard the learned counsel for the parties.(2). On a petition filed by the respondent u/S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, granted the decree for divorce. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-non-petitioner, has filed this appeal.(3). According to the averment made in the petition, the marriage between the parties was celebrated on 15.12.1985 according to Hindu rites at Sri Ganganagar. After marriage, the appellant gave birth to a daughter Shobhna who was about 7 years of age on the date of the filing of the petition. The respondent in his petition, prayed for the decree for divorce u/S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent's mother was the owner of house No. 5A/38 situated at Jawahar Nagar and the appellant asked the respondent's mother to transfer the house to her and threatened that if the house was not transferred to her, a report would be lodged at ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »