Rajasthan Court July 2002 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.
Raj. Parivahan Nigam Karamchari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1056; 2002(4)WLC400
Sharma, J.1. Common prayer of the petitioners in both these writ petitions is as under-(i) Regulations 3(i), (k) and Note below Regulation 3 (i) of the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations 1989 (for short 1989 Regulations) be declared to be ultravires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same may be struck down as such.(ii) Petitioner Shafique Ahmed and 49 members of the petitioner Rajasthan Parivahan Nigam Karamchari and Adhikari Kalyan Samiti named in Schedule appended to this writ petition who have retired prior to April 1, 1989 and families of 27 employees who have retired before April 1, 1989 and have died thereafter should be given pensionary benefits from the date of retirement.2. Facts in brief are that the erstwhile Rajasthan State Roadways department of the Government of Rajasthan which was in existence upto Sept. 30, 1964 was converted into the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short RSRTC) with effect from October 1, 1964 under the provisio...
Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1050; 2003(1)WLN136
Sharma, J.1. The analogous cluster of 19 writ petitions involve common questions of law.2. The petitioners, who got retired form the municipal services prior to October 1, 1987 have prayed that they alongwith all other similarly situated employees should be allowed pensionary benefits.3. To understand the controversy, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1974/1992 may be looked into. The said petition has been filed by Mohan Lal in a representative capacity on behalf of himself and 50 other employees, who were not paid pension.4. A look at the Legislative history of Municipal Laws reveals that the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 came into force w.e.f. December 22, 1951. At that time Ajmer Merwara did not from part of the State of Rajasthan and the employees of Ajmer Merwara were governed by Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulations, 1925. Ajmer Merwara merged into the State of Rajasthan on November 1, 19956. Thereafter the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 came into force ...
Ram Bhawan Dharamshala Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN43(Raj)
Y.R. Meena, J. On an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that even if the assessee-trust is assumed to be a valid charitable trust at the inception, in any case, it ceased to be a charitable trust, as it indirectly carried on a profit-earning activity by having let out the first floor to a firm in which one of the trustees was a partner and, therefore, it was not entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. None appeared for the assessee. Heard the learned counsel for the revenue, Mr. Singhi.3. Mr. Singhi, the learned counsel for the revenue, brought to our notice that identical issue has been considered by this court in the case of this very assessee in D.B. I.T. Reference No. 43 of 1988 dated 5-7-2002. The l...
Abdul Hameed Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1047; RLW2003(4)Raj2618; 2002(5)WLC898
ORDERA.C. Goyal, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the 'Act 1881') against the accused petitioner in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 21.4.1992 with the averments that the complainant and the accused constituted a partnership firm under the name of 'Nishat Carpets' with effect from 11.5.1989. The firm was engaged in manufacturing of carpets. Thecomplainant invested a sum of Rs,. 50,000/- in the month of May, 1989 and this amount was paid to the accused. The business of the firm was running properly, but in October, 1991 the complainant separated himself from this firm and thus the firm stood dissolved. At that time, accounts were settled and a sum o f Rs. 64,904/- was found due to be paid by the accused to the complainant. The dissolutiom deed was executed. Towards the aforesaid liability, ...
Dev Kishan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1118; RLW2003(4)Raj2606
Goyal, J.1. This appeal through Central Jail, Kota, is directed against the judgment dated 21,10.1997 is sessions case no 16/1997, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran convicted and sentenced three accused appellants Dev Kishan, Ramkumar and Meghraj with 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C., and 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default one month R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default one month R.I. under Section 366-A I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW 8 Ramcharan, alongwith his daughter Anar Bai lodged a written report Ex. P 10 at police station Nahargarh at 7 p.m. on 21.1.1997 with the averments that on 10.1.1997 his daughter went to her 'Nanihal'along with her maternal uncle Chauthmal. Sh. Chauthmal came and informed him on 18.1.1997 that Anar Bai is missing since 17.1.1997. it was further stated in Ex....
Sua Lal and ors. Vs. Kana and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2273; RLW2003(4)Raj2430
Goyal, J.1. Facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that on 3.8.2000, the S.H.O., Dudu, District Jaipur, submitted a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.M., Sambherlake, District Jaipur, with the averments that a dispute arose between the parties regarding possession of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 511/1060, measuring 19 Bighas and 3 Biswa in village Gazi, Tehsil Dudu for their share and a quarrel took place between both the parties on 30.7.2000 and 18 persons from both the sides received injuries in that incident. Criminal Cases under various Sections of IPC were registered against them and as such there is every likelihood of breach of peace. On this complaint, Tehsildar, Dudu, was appointed Receiver of this land by learned Magistrate, Vide order dated 3.8.2000, and he was directed to take over the possession o the land and manage for its cultivation and show cause notices were also issued to both the parties.2. Party No. 2, instead of filin...
Municipal Board Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj11; RLW2003(3)Raj1716; 2003(1)WLC175
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition relates to the claim made by the petitioner-Municipal Board, Rajsamand to charge an amount by way of purported licence fee for the user of subsoil of land within the land adjacent to public road situated within the limits of Municipal Board, Rajsamand, by the respondent No. 1.3. The respondent No. 1 had laid an underground pipeline of 41/2 Kms. in length with the pipe of two feet circumference from Rajsamand to its factory gate situated at Kankroli. This pipeline runs throughout all along the pipeline laid by Public Water Works. The pipeline was laid in the year 1976. The permission for laying down such an underground pipeline from Rajsamand lake to the factory gate of the respondent No. 1 was granted by the Public Works Department, Udaipur vide letter dated 7-1-1975.4. On an audit objection being raised in the year 1982-83 that the respondent is using the land of Municipality by laying down the pipelin...
Managing Committee Swami Keshwanand Mahavidyalaya Gramotthan Vidyapeet ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj2022; 2002(5)WLC928; 2002(5)WLN235
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. All the above-mentioned three writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in all of them, common questions of law facts are involved.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 921/20012. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 3.3.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment & order dated 6.12.2000 (Annex.P/3) passed by the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur in favour of respondent No. 3 Badri Ram Chahar be quashed and set aside.3. It arises in the following circumstances:The petitioner is a Managing Committee of the registered Society registered under the Societies Registration Act i.e. Gramotthan Vidyapeeth, Sangaria. The society is receiving the aid from the State Government in accordance with the norms and criteria laid down in the Rules in relation to expenditure.The Respondents No. 3 Bad...
LR's of J.R. Ansari Vs. Hariram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1951; 2003(1)WLC126; 2002(5)WLN688
Chauhan, J.1. Both these revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur allowing the application of the non-petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') and rejecting the application of the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the non-petitioner had filed a suit for eviction against the predecessor in interest of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity. After trial, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.1995. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the non-petitioner preferred the appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 7.8.1995. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant-predecessor in interest of the petitioners/respondents died on 6.2.2001. The petitioners filed an application under Order 22 Rule 5 of ...
Lakshmi Cement Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: [2004]134STC200(Raj)
B. PRASAD, J.1. The petitioner is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Portland cement. The company is a registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RST Act' and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act').2. It is claimed by the petitioner that the Government of Rajasthan issued Notification No. F.4 (72)FD/GR. IV/81-18 dated May 6, 1986. By this notification, partial exemption was granted from the tax payable in respect of inter-State sales in the manner and subject to the conditions mentioned in the notification. The petitioner claims that this partial exemption from tax payable on inter-State sales is given to reduce branch/stock transfers on which no tax is leviable under the CST Act.3. The petitioner claims that the present writ petition is not related to quantum of exemption available under the notification. The dispute circles around the sale of levy cement. The ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »