Rajasthan Court October 2006 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.
Amod Kumar Saxena Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1747
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge who had been pleased to reject the writ petition which had been filed by the petitioner/appellant herein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.6.2001 by which reference initiated at the instance of the petitioner for referring the dispute to the Industrial/Labour Tribunal was rejected as it could be noticed that there was no prima facie dispute in between the petitioner/appellant herein and the respondent-State.2. On scrutiny of the facts in regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner/appellant herein, it could be traced out that the petitioner/appellant herein submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement which was also signed by two witnesses and the application was accepted by the respondent No. 2, the Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner, Ajmer after which all monetary benefits to which the petitioner/appellant herein was entitled were also paid to him. It coul...
Acto Vs. Ganesh Mishthan Bhandar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1490
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the non-petitioner despite service.2. The question of law involved in this revision petition is that whether for business of hotel and restaurant, the dealer is liable to pay the tax in case his annual gross turn over exceeds Rs. 2,00,000/- and whether the dealer of hotel and restaurant is not liable to pay the tax unless after giving benefit of Clause (1) of Notification No. 815 dated 27.6.1990, if his annual gross turn over does not exceed further Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tax Board held that the assessee's total turn over is Rs. 4,99,283/-. The Tax Board gave deduction to sales of the sales tax exempted and sales tax paid sales from the said total turnover of Rs. 4,99,283/-. Since the total turn over of the assessee, after deducting Rs. 2,00,000, is less than Rs. 2,00,000/-, therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay any tax.3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the dealer comes in the net immediately when h...
Commercial Taxes Officer, Works and Leasing Tax Vs. J.K. Brs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj944
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 9.2.2001 by which the Tax Board dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order dated 20.12.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent entered into contract of construction with the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Rawtbhata and obtained works order dated 15.11.1986. During the assessment year 1987-88, the respondent received a sum of Rs. 39,47,609/-. The respondent was liable to payment of sales tax on the transfer of goods used in the execution of the works contract. However, instead of paying the tax, as aforesaid, the assessee contractor opted for payment for exemption fee @ 3% which was allowable w.e.f. 28.5.1987. The assessee respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 42,682/- towards the exemption fee but did not deposit remaining amount due to the tune of Rs. 76,646/-. It is also alleged that a sum of Rs....
Dilip Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj752
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 115/2001, Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Division-A, Jodhpur qua the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 465, 467 and 120-BIPC.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the FIR and the Police Investigation Diary.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant petition are that the non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 (for short 'the complainants' hereinafter) purchased land bearing Khasra No. 130 in village Mogada, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur which was titled as Plot No. 7 and divided in four plots, by a registered sale deed executed by one Vinod Kashyap who is power of attorney holder of Mohd. Asif and Mohd. Arif. After purchase of the said four plots which were originally plot No. 7, the complainants came to know that the said plot No. 7 has already been sold by Mohd. Asif and Mohd. Arif to present petitioner Dilip ...
Onkarmal and ors. Vs. Rameshwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj142
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.2. The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction and injunction in mandatory form in respect of the disputed 'Bada' as well as the disputed gate. The lower court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants in respect of the disputed gate marked as 'X'. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by defendant Madan La before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, which was transferred for its disposal to the court of Additional Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur, which was registered as Civil Regular Appeal No. 38/1984. The first appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 5.3.1986, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.3.1984 passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chomu, District Jaipur, in Suit No. 19/80. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants.3. This...
Birbal Through Lrs. Vs. Smt. Gyarsi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj59
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are that plaintiff-appellant Birbal Filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the lower Court against the defendants to pass a decree in his favour declaring him to be the successor of late Shri Nathu Ram son of Geeda Ram and that the defendants No. 1 to 4 are not the heirs of deceased Nathu Ram and further that deceased Nathu Ram did not die issueless. It was further prayed in the plaint that the land which has been attached by Tehsildar, Tehsil Neem-ka-Thana, treating the land of late Shri Nathu Ram as escheat property, be released and the same be handed over to the plaintiff. A prayer of permanent injunction was also made that the defendants No. 1 to 5 be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and further not to transfer the land in dispute. The plaintiff pleaded in the suit that late Shri nathu ram son of Geeda Ram was an old person and was issueless but he was very affe...
Assistant Engineer, Distributory Sub, Division Right MaIn Canal, Chamb ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj933
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 28.4.1993 (Annexure 26) mainly on the ground that reference was vague and further same become infructuous on account of taking workmen on duty during the conciliation proceedings.2. Briefly stated the facts of the writ petition are that 7 workmen were engaged/employed on 10.11.1978 as casual labour on daily wages on the post of Beldar by the petitioner. The workmen continued to work upto 30.9.1980, but from 1.10.1980 they refused to perform the work of excavation in the Right Main Canal Sub-Division Anta. It is further stated in the writ petition that the workmen absented themselves from duty w.e.f. 1.10.1980. On 3.10.1980, letters were sent by some of the workmen namely Ramkishan, Ravinder Kumar, Ratan Singh and Kishorilal to the Assistant Engineer alleging that they were not permitted to work on the site. Thereafter, on 5.10.1980, Moolchand Mistri of Distributory S...
Miththu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj995
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The learned in question, shown as 'Gair Mumkin Rasta' was converted into the category 'Barani' and allotted to the petitioner by the Allotment Committee on May 31,1971. The petitioner thereafter was recorded as Khatedar of the said land in revenue records, and started cultivating the same. The respondents No. 2 to 8 on August 6,1996 i.e. after 25 years and 6 months filed application for quashing the allotment. The Additional District Collector Bharatpur vide order dated May 16, 1997 allowed the application and made reference under Section 82 read with Section 9 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short '1956 Act') to the Board of Revenue (for short 'Board'). The reference was allowed by the Board vide order dated September 8,1997 and quashed the allotment made in favour of petitioner on May 31, 1971. Against this order of the Board that the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.3. The State of Ra...
Gurcharan Singh (Dr.) Vs. Nagar Parishad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj528
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.10.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing thereby writ petition preferred by present appellant. In the writ petition, the appellant had prayed for quashment of the order dated 27.1.1978 whereby the Government approved of lease of a strip of land in favour of respondent No. 4 Shyam Lal for 99 years by Municipal Council, Sriganganagar.2. Facts of the matter as disclosed in the memorandum of writ petition are that the appellant constructed a house on plot No. 1127 situated in old Abadi, Kachchi Diggi, Ward No. 21 Sriganganagar. Respondent No. 4 had his house adjacent to the aforesaid house of appellant on its eastern side. There was however a small piece of land measuring 627 sq. feet on east southern side of the aforesaid plot of appellant. A site plan of the land in dispute indicating the location of the two houses has been placed on record as Exhibit 1. With the help of site-plan, the appellan...
Rajmata Krishna Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj570
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Moharchy ended, titles derecognized and privy purses abolished, but the imprints of royalty still survive in the covenants entered into between the Rules of the Princely States and the Government of the Dominion of India before 'WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA' gave unto ourselves, the Constitution of India.2. Present one is an appeal at the instance of Rajmita Krishna Kumari, widow of His Late Highness Maharaja Shri Hanwant Singhji of Jodhpur challenging the judgment dated 27.7.1994 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby her writ petition was dismissed.3. In the writ petition, the appellant prayed for quashment of the order of the Government dated 30th Nov., 1991 and that of the Executive Engineer dated 1st Oct., 1992, by both the which, the respondents declined to continue free water supply for irrigation purposes to 'Sadari Garden' situated at Sadari to the appellant till outstanding dues towards irrigation charges were paid and also for quashing the demand...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »