Rajasthan Court April 2004 Judgments
Manohar Lal Agarwal Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2614; 2004(4)WLC262
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 4.2.2004 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned notice dtd. 13.11.2001 (Annex.5) issued by the Assistant Engineer (CSD II), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bhilwara by which a demand of Rs. 8,76,788.65 in respect of electricity connection No. 5311/10 of M/s. Bhilwara Refinery and Solvent Plant was raised against the petitioner and it was also stated in the notice dtd. 13.11.2001 (Annex.5) that in case the petitioner did not deposit the amount in question, his domestic connection No. 1708/133 would be disconnected, be quashed and set aside and respondent No. 3 (Ajmer Vidhyut Engineer (West), Bhilwara be directed to restore domestic electric connection No. 1708/133 of the petitioner.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:-i) That there was a company known as Bhilwara Refine...
Tag this Judgment!Shamim Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj205; II(2004)DMC609; RLW2004(3)Raj2007; 2004(3)WLC136
Ashok Parihar, J.1. An application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was filed by the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danta Ram Garh, Sikar.2. After filing reply as also the documents, an application was filed by the petitioner before the trial Court with the prayer that on admitted facts in reply filed on behalf of the respondent husband and the agreement placed on record, the petitioner was entitled for possession of part of the property in dispute.3. Accordingly, the trial Court vide order dated 11-4-2001 issued directions that as per the agreement and contract, the petitioner may be given possession of the part of the property mentioned therein.4. Aggrieved by the above order dated 11-4-2001, the respondent husband filed a revision petition mainly on the ground that the impugned order dated 11-4-2001 has been passed by the trial Court under Section 151, CPC. As such, the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Balu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ33; RLW2004(3)Raj1756
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was accused on the file of learned Special Judge NDPS Cases Chittorgarh vide judgment dated February 15, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. one lac, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are these:-On may 26, 2000 SHO, Police Station Vijaypur after receiving secret information through some Mukhbir proceeded to Vijaypur bus-stand along with police party. Around 11.30 AM one person was seen carrying a plastic bag on his right shoulder. The person got halted and on being enquired he gave his name as Balu Jat. A notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was given to him and on being searched he was found possessing 3.100 kg. opium illegally in the plastic bag. The opium got recovered and necessary memos were ...
Tag this Judgment!Jasoria Medical Store and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2083; 2004(3)WLC626
Rathore, J.1. These are 7 writ petitions involving identical questions of law and are being decided by a common order.2. The facts of the case of Jasoria Medical Store, Deeg and Anr. v. State of Raj. and Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2170/1995) are being taken as a leading case.3. The petitioners are engaged in the retail business of buying and selling of manufactured Drugs in the form of Tablets, Powder, Liquids and Ointments i.e. the petitioners are merely supplying or selling a Drug as defined in Rule 3 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.4. The Government of India exercising the powers under Section 6(2) (12) and 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has framed the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Part 6 of the said rules is relevant to the present controversy. This part deals with sale of Drugs other than the Homeopathic Medicines. Rule 64 provides grant of various kinds of licences in From 20, 20-A, 20-B, 21, 21-A and 21-B, the classification of Drugs is given i...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Jagdish Prasad and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj302; 2004(5)WLC429
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of instant application under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. the applicants namely Mangi Lal. Banshi Lal, Chhagan Lal, Ganesh Lal s/o Modu Ram and Ganesh Lal s/o Babu Lal resident of Kumharon Ka Bhatta, Udaipur seek review of the order of this Court dated 25-8-2003 passed in a public interest litigation directing the Urban improvement Trust. Udaipur to shift all the brick-kilns within the City of Udaipur to the land sanctioned by the State Government vide Annexure-R/3, dated 23-8-2003 in village-Odwadiya. Tehsil, Mavil.2. It is submitted that for the manufacture of the bricks requirement of water. appropriate soil and easy mode of transportation is necessary. The proposed site in village Odwadiya is not appropriate for establishing brick kilns as the site does not have sufficient soil requirement inasmuch as it is a rocky area. The applicants have suggested other site in village Lakarwas, Eklingpura, Para-Ka-Khet. Tila-Ka-Khera and western side's l...
Tag this Judgment!D.D. Shah and Brothers Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: [2005]278ITR572(Raj); RLW2004(4)Raj2618
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 8.1.2004 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the assessment order dtd. 4.12.2003 (Annex.4) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Banswara (respondent No. 2) for the assessment year 2001-2002 by which the respondent No. 2 (Income Tax Officer, Banswara) dis-al-lowed the deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and brought entire business income to tax be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case us put forward by the petitioner are as under:-i) The petitioner - firm was engaged in the business of running an industrial undertaking of blending of various types of tea leaves as per the procedure and is duly registered as a manufacturing unit with the District Industries Centre, Banswara vide certificate (Annex.1). ii) Further case of the petitioner is that even the Department of Industries in Central G...
Tag this Judgment!Khopade Jayendra Narsing Vs. Jai NaraIn Vyas University and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2707; 2004(3)WLC475
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 4.10.2002 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 28.5.2002 (Annex. 4) issued by the respondent Jai Narain Vyas University (for short 'JNV University') by which the registration of the petitioner for Ph.D. in political Science and Public Administration was cancelled on the ground that he had passed the B.A. External in one year sitting from Osmania University and that one year BA degree was not equivalent to B.A. degree of JNV University, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to enroll the petitioner as a candidate for the Ph.D. with effect from the date of his submitting synopsis with the respondent JNV University.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioner passed one year BA degree course from the Osmania University in the...
Tag this Judgment!Sushila Mehta Vs. Smt. Chandrakala and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1875; 2005(3)WLC393
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Heard at admission stage.2. The petitioner-defendant has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 8.12.2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dtd. 3.1.1997 (Annex.3) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jodhpur, by which the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. by which a prayer was made that since the defendant-petitioner had filed an interpleader suit against the respondent No. 1 (Smt. Chandrakala) and 8 others, therefore, till decision of that suit, the present suit No. 531/1993 pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (respondent No. 2) be stayed was rejected, be quashed and set aside.3. It may be stated here that the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for rent and ejectment on the ground of first default in the court of Additional ...
Tag this Judgment!D.D. Shah and Bros. Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-2004
Reported in: [2005]143TAXMAN292(Raj)
ORDERI. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiahas been filed by the petitioner on 8-1-2004 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the assessment order dated 4-12-2003 (Annex 4) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Banswara (respondent No.2) for the assessment year 2001-2002 by which the respondent No.2 (Income Tax Officer, Banswara) disallowed the deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and brought entire business income to tax be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case is put forward by the petitioner are as under:(i) The petitioner-firm was engaged in the business of running an industrial undertaking of blending of various types of tea leaves as per the procedure and is duly registered as a manufacturing unit with the District Industries Centre, Banswara vide certificate (Annex 1).(ii) Further case of the petitioner is that even the Department of Industries in Central Government vide its cir...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Kohinoor Vs. Vijay Kumar and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj270; RLW2004(3)Raj1771; 2004(3)WLC120
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This application has been filed by the applicant-M/s Hotel Kohinoor for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause-18 of the agreement which has been entered into between the applicant-M/s Hotel Kohinoor and the respondent-M/s Vijay Kumar & Co. It is an admitted position that the applicant- M/s Hotel Kohinoor was given out on lease for its maintenance and management by the respondent-M/s Vijay Kumar & Co. for which purpose the respondent licencee had to pay the licence fee of Rs. 3,61,000/- per month payable by 10th of each month. A written agreement for this purpose was executed between the parties incorporating Clause-18 which envisaged that in case of any dispute or difference arising out of the deed of licence between the parties, the same shall be referred to the arbitration for sorting out the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 and in that case it shall be subject to the jurisdiction at Jaipur. It was further ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »