Rajasthan Court September 2002 Judgments
Raj Vimal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR1199]; (2003)IIILLJ86Raj; 2003WLC(Raj)UC293
Rajesh Balia and D.N. Joshi, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the termination of his service by order dated September 6, 1991 by his employer respondent Bhilwara Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Bhilwara. According to the petitioner, he joined his duties on March 5, 1991 and having worked upto September 5, 1991 which he claims to be with deliberate breaks in the service, his services were terminated on September 6, 1991.2. The petitioner's claim to relief is rested on a resolution passed by the Bank for regularisation of the service who had been in employment for six months or more. He has also claimed relief for officer to appointment on priority basis in case any person was again appointed after September 5, 1991 as LDC.3. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition by upholding the preliminary objection that the Bhilwara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Balajee Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC630; 2003(2)WLC762
K.S. Rathore, J. 1. The petitioner-company is manufacturing wheat flour, maida, fortified maida and nutritional foods in various States like Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Pradesh.2. The Department of Women and Child Development purchases substantial quantities of nutrient food including baby mix, sweet and salted Murmure and other items of nutrient food under various schemes e.g. Pradhan Mantri Gramin Yojna (for short PMGY). I.C.D.S.3. An NIT was issued on 11.2.2002 for requiring 'Poshahars' from prestigious manufacturers. The petitioner also moved an application for tender document and after obtaining at the same was submitted to the Department of Women and Child Development within the stipulated period. However, in June 2002 the tender was cancelled without assigning any reason. The respondents called fresh tender dated 8.7.2002 and the petitioner submitted fresh bids for tender dated 8.7.2002 for zone D as the bids were invited zonewise.4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN528
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The three writ petitions concerns the levy of octroi duty on the supplies of petroleum products made by the petitioner companies in each case, to its dealers for their sale consumption and use outside the municipal limits. Under the terms of dealership the petroleum products are transported from respective depot of the respective petitioners at Jodhpur and supplies of petroleum products to such dealers at different places are made at the risk of the petitioners. The sale of such petroleum products takes place outside the municipal limits of Jodhpur and not at the Jodhpur depot of the petitioner. Since July, 1975, the respondent Municipal Council suspended the transport facility of the petitioner in each case on the ground that the octroi duty could be charged from the petitioners in respect of goods transported from within the municipal limits, even though they were to be exported for sale outside the municipal limits and made...
Tag this Judgment!Parmanand Setia Vs. Somlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj54; 2003(2)WLC84; 2003(2)WLN84
B. Prasad, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the order of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 13/1985 by which learned Judge rejected the application under Order 23, Rule 3, CPC. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that defendant No. 1 is tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant is denied by respondent No. 1 and he claimed that he is living as owner in the property. The respondent No. 1 filed an application on 27-11-1984 under Order 23. Rule 3, CPC that parties have compromised and in terms of this compromise, an agricultural land situated at Abohar was the bone of contention. It has been stated that defendant will not interfere into the land and the plaintiff has accepted that defendant No. 1 is occupying House No. 33A, Block Public Park as a owner in terms of mutual partnership as agreed by the parties. It was prayed in the application that suit should be decided in terms of the agreement. 3. The plaintiff opposed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tinwari Automobiles Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN1104(Raj)
Heard on stay application.2. The stay applications in the above three writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in all of them, common question is involved.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3559/20023. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the notice dated 21-8-2002 (Annex. 6) issued by the respondent No. 6 (The Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Central Circle-II, Income Tax Department, Jodhpur) under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) by which the petitioner was requested to prepare a true and correct return of his total income including the undisclosed income in respect of which he as individual is assessable for the block period mentioned in section 158B(a) of the Act of 1961 and further the respondent No. 5 (The Deputy Director (Inv), Income Tax Rajaswa Bhawan, Statue Circle, Jaipur) and respondent No. 6 (the Assistant Commissioner, Income T...
Tag this Judgment!Tinwari Automobile, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: [2004]265ITR484(Raj)
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Heard on stay application.2. The stay applications in the above three writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in all of them, a common question is involved.3. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3559 of 2002 :This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the notice dated August 21, 2002 (annexure 6), issued by respondent No. 6 (the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-II, Income-tax Department, Jodhpur) under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), by which the petitioner was requested to prepare a true and correct return of his total income including the undisclosed income in respect of which he as individual is assessable for the block period mentioned in Section 158B(a) of the Act of 1961 and further respondent No. 5 (the Deputy Director (Investigation), Income-tax, Rajaswa Bhawan, Statue Circle, Jaipur) and respo...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharam Singh Bhai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1998; 2003(1)WLC699
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal and the cross-objection are directed against the judgment and award dated 13.5.1999 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 84,582 in favour of respondent-claimant No. 1 Dharam Singh Bhai (for short 'the claimant' hereinafter) against the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'the insurance company' hereinafter) and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 holding them liable jointly and severally.2. Aggrieved by the judgment and the award impugned, the insurance company has filed the present appeal and feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.3. Briefly stated, facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the appeal and cross-objection are that on 21.10.1994, marble slabs owned by the claimant were load...
Tag this Judgment!Tcs Consultancy Services P. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Telephone Industries Lt ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: [2004]118CompCas724(Raj)
S.K. Keshote J.1. This application is under Section 460(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, by the applicant. In the application it is prayed that the offer submitted by the bidder is undervalued and the same may be rejected. The offer of the applicant given now be accepted.2. Rajasthan Telephone Industries Ltd. was ordered to be wound up by this court under the order dated August 12, 1999, in Company Petition No. 24 of 1999 and the official liquidator attached to the court was directed to proceed with the winding up proceedings as per the law.3. The official liquidator in course of winding up proceedings invited sealed tenders for sale of assets of the company. He got notice inviting tenders published in Hindustan Times (a daily newspaper) in its edition of June 1, 2002. The reserve price fixed for the sale of the land measuring 20,000 sq. metres with structure thereon was rupees one crore twenty-five lakhs.4. In para. No. 4 of the app...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Madanlal Meena
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC404; 2003(1)WLN115
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.2. The appellants challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Madanlal.3. The petitioner Madan Lal was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baseda, Panchayat Samiti Shahpura, Distt. Bhilwara in February, 2000. The petitioner was served with a notice dt. 28th September, 2001 calling upon him to explain that since he has contested the election of Sarpanch while the criminal case under Sections 325, 323 and 324 was pending consideration in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura at the time when he filed his nomination papers, he was ineligible to contest the election under Section 19(gg) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Thereafter, on 27th October, 2001 an order was issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer that because an enquiry under Section 39 read with Section 19 of the Act of 1994 is pending against the said Madanlal, he is suspended as Sarpa...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR167(Raj)
Y.R. Meena, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated January 31, 2001. The issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether unabsorbed loss can be carried forward and allowed in the case of this assessee when the loss was suffered by four co-operative societies in the preceding year 2. There were four co-operative societies duly registered with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for Rajasthan, Jaipur. The co-operative societies are : (i) Rajasthan Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gulabpura ; (ii) Gangapur Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gulabpura ; (iii) Ganganagar Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Hanumangarh ; and (iv) Gulabpura Cotton Ginning and Pressing Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Gulabpura. The Government of Rajasthan had major shareholding in the aforesaid co-operative societies. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur, made an order under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, read w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »