Rajasthan Court April 2004 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.
Popular Packings Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(175)ELT33(Raj); RLW2004(3)Raj1894; 2004(3)WLC1
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. The dispute raised in the aforesaid petitions is with regard to the question whether HDPE/PP tapes are classifiable under heading No. 39.20 or heading No. 39.22 or Heading No. 39.26 of Section VII of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Since the controversy in all these writ petitions is the same we may notice the facts of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3737 of 1989 with a view to understand the background in which these matters arise.2. The petitioner in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3737/1989 is M/s Kay Poly Plast Pvt. Ltd. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of High Density Poly Ethylene tapes (for short, 'HDPE tapes') and Poly Propylene tapes (for short, 'PP tapes'). It appears that the petitioner purchases HDPE/PP granules. In order to convert the HDPE/PP granules into HDPE/PP tapes, the granules are poured into a machine called Extruder. In the extruder these granules are melted by heating. Due to heat the granules polymerize into a m...
Ratan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1760; 2004(3)WLC231
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 25.11.2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the whole proceedings of No Confidence Motion dtd. 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) taken against the petitioner be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:i) That the petitioner was elected as Up Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat 42 G.B., Panchayat Samiti Anoopgarh Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, Distt. Sri Ganganagar.ii) Further case of the petitioner is that since elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat 42 G.B., namely, Harjeet Singh was in judicial custody, therefore, the State Government vide its order dtd. 5.11.2003 (Annex. 1) directed the respondent No. 5 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Anoopgarh) to hand over the charge of the post of Sarpanch to the petitioner till the release of sarpanch Harjeet Singh from the jail and thereafter th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.B. Properties and Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)516
1. On an application under section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, 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 the hotel building and also various fittings such as sanitary fittings, electricity fittings, etc. were all part of the plant and, therefore, depreciation was allowable on these assets at the rate applicable to the plant?'2. For the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86, the assessee which is a limited company running hotels at Jaipur, had claimed that the hotel building be treated as a plant and various fittings such as sanitary fittings, electric fittings, etc. also be considered part of the plant and depreciation should be allowed as is permissible on plant. The ITO has rejected the claim of the assessee but CIT(A) has accepted the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal has also affirmed the view taken by CIT(A).3. Counsel for the respondent pleads no i...
Kesulal Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Tribal Areas Development Co-operative Fede ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj55; IV(2004)BC93; 2005(2)CTLJ93(Raj); 2004(3)WLC207
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 10.3.2004 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order of direction, the record in relation to award of contract for transportation of foodgrains granted in favour of the respondent No. 2 Om Prakash Joshi be called for and after calling the record, the grant of tender in favour of the respondent No. 2 be quashed and set aside and the tender submitted by the respondent No. 2 be ordered to be rejected and the respondent No, 1 Rajasthan Tribal Areas Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. (for short 'the Federation') be directed to accept the tender of the petitioner and issue the work order in his favour,2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:The respondent No. 1 Federation through tender notice dated 9.2.2004, which was amended and revised through tender notice dated 16.2.2004 (Annex. R/1)...
Kesulal Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Tribunal Areas Development Cooperative Fed ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2507
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 10.3.2004 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the record in relation to award of contract for transportation of food grains granted in favour of the respondent No. 2 Om Prakash Joshi be called for and after calling the record, the grant of tender in favour of the respondent No. 2 be quashed and set aside and the tender submitted by the respondent No. 2 be ordered to be rejected and the respondent No. 1 Rajasthan Tribunal Areas Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. (for short 'the Federation') be directed to accept the tender of the petitioner and issue the work order in his favour.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The respondent No. 1 Federation through tender notice dated 9.2.2004, which was amended and revised through tender notice dated 16.2.2004 (Annex....
Prabhu Mehta Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC82; 2005ACJ1890; RLW2004(4)Raj2670; 2004(4)WLC96
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant claiming enhancement of the amount of compensation which has been awarded to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur vide its award dated 1.11.2001 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been awarded for permanent partial disablement on account of amputation of his left leg below the knee as a result of which he has been rendered disabled for his entire life.2. It appears that the appellant was travelling on a truck bearing No. BR -13G-3131 since he was working as a 'Khalasi' on this truck which met with an accident on 18th October 1996. The appellant admittedly suffered grievous injuries on account of this accident and was admitted into the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur on 18.10.96 and was discharged from the Hospital after 24 days but his left leg from the knee had to be amputated in order to save his life. A proceeding was thereafter initiated before the M.A.C.T. Jaipur for determining the amount of compensation ...
Virendra Singh and ors. Vs. Kashiram (Deceased by L.Rs.)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj196; 2006(1)CTLJ378(Raj); RLW2004(3)Raj1979; 2004(3)WLC711
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is first appeal by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1992 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarhbas decreed the plaintiffs suit. The parties in this appeal shall be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The plaintiff Sh. Kashiram (since deceased) filed a suit on 26-2-1986 for cancellation of a gift deed dated 20-6-1977 and for declaration that the defendant No. 1 Sh. Virendra Singh is not the adopted son of the plaintiff with the averments that agricultural land measuring 15 beeghas 5 biswas as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint and agricultural land measuring 16 and half beeghas as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint is in Khatedari and in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is having three daughters -- all married and his wife. The defendants Virendra Singh and his father Deen Dayal are also residents of village Bheekhawas. The defendant No. 2 Sh. Deen Dayal is an advocate and on account of his contacts with the plai...
Agarwal Agencies and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3426
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek to quash the order dated 8-1-1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga taking cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sections 17 and 18 read with Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20th Jan., 1994 Insecticides Inspector Shri Mani Ram Tomar collected sample of methyl parathion 2% D. P. from the shop of M/s. Agarwal Agencies, Mandi Goluwala. The Insecticide Analyst found the sample to be mixed-branded. He sent a report under communication dated 17-3-1994. The learned Magistrate issued the process against the petitioners by order dated 28-11-1996.3. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings against them on number of grounds. It is inter alia contended that according to Section 33 of the Act only those persons can be held guilty for the offence under the Act committed by the compa...
Arjun Singh and ors. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ946Raj; 2004(4)WLC145
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. These appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated October 18, 2000 in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 3280/1998, 3116/1999, 3121/1999 and 2266/1999 and dated October 19, 2000 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 58/1999 and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as they raise identical question of law. The facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows:The appellants were employed by the State in various capacities on daily wages. After a short period their services were terminated. The following chart indicates the dates of appointment and the dates of termination of the appellants except appellants Khinv Singh and Pancha Ram.Appeal Name of Date of Date ofAppellant Appointment termination494/2001 Arjun Singh January 1, April 1, 19901988393/2001 Rcwat Ram April 1, 1983 December 1,199333/2001 Khan Mohd. January 1, October 31,1983 1993As regards Khinv Singh, he was initially appointed as Cattle Guard on February 1, 1980, subs...
Pradeep and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1056
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek to quash order dated 11-9-2001 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, whereby he accepted the application filed by complainant-respondent No. 2 under Section 473, Cr.P.C. and has condoned the delay and taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sections 147, 148, 451, 427 and 323 of IPC.2. The second respondent Shankar Lal submitted a complaint in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No, 3, Jodhpur with respect to the incidents alleged to have taken place on 7-12-1988, 14-12-1988 and 15-12-1988. The complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. A case was registered at Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur as FIR Case No. 228/88. The police registered the case for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 451 and 457, IPC. The police, after investigation, submitted a Final Report on 10-11-1989. At this stag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »