Rajasthan Court April 2007 Judgments
Vijay Kumar Chowrasiya and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3238
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Aforesaid three writ petitions have been filed by trolley/stall holders selling eatables under licence from the Railways at different railway stations falling in the erstwhile Western Railways prior to reorganization of the Zones. They are aggrieved by the increase in the amount of license fee and consequential recovery thereof and have therefore approached this Court by filing these writ petitions. While Writ Petition No. 4391/00 has been jointly filed by as many as seventeen petitioners and there are ninety nine petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4799/2001 but the Writ Petition No. 473.4/2000 has been filed by the petitioner Anil Goyal alone. Since the grievance raised in these petitions was founded on similar facts and redressal of which has been sought for by raising similar arguments of law, they were heard together and are now being decided by this common judgment.2. Before the rival arguments raised by the respective counsels in the cases are taken up for cons...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion Vs. M.R.F. Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: 2009(235)ELT802(Raj); (2007)10VST108(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. The question that arises for consideration by this Court in the present revision petitions filed by the Revenue is as to whether vulcanising solution used by the respondent-assessee in tyre retreading work is a synthetic adhesive taxable at the rate of 16 per cent or at general rate of 10 per cent which was charged and paid by the respondent-assessee.2. The assessing authority imposed difference tax of six per cent on the sale value of such vulcanising solution holding the same to be taxable at the rate of 16 per cent purportedly under entry No. 91 of Notification, S. No. 713, S.O. No. 399 dated March 27, 1995 which entry reads as under:91. Paints, pigments, enamels, cement based water colours, dry 16%' distempers, oil-based distempers, emulsion paints including acrylic and plastic emulsion paints, lacquers including cellulose lacquers, varnishes, all types of synthetic adheshes, all types of polish (other than boot-polish), turpentine oil, white oil, double boiled...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: [2007]294ITR131(Raj)
1. We heard Ms. Parinitoo Jain for the Revenue and Mr. P.K. Kasliwal counsel for the assessee.That the assessee acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by accepting a loan of Rs. 90,000 in cash in the year from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, on different dates from his brother Pankaj Sharma is not in dispute.2. The details of the loan accepted by the assessee from his brother Pankaj Sharma are thus: Rs. 17,000 on 13-12-2000 Rs. 18,000 on 15-12-2000 Rs. 15,000 on 25-12-2000 Rs. 18,000 on 24-01-2001 Rs. 17,000 on 30-01-2001 Rs. 5,000 on 31-01-2001 (in all Rs. 90,000)3. Since in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the assessee acted in contravention of Section 269SS, notice was issued to the assessee to show, cause as to why penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act may not be imposed on him.4. The explanation of the assessee in response to the show-cause notice was that the loan was taken from his brother for immediate business n...
Tag this Judgment!Alka Dadhich (Smt.) Vs. Ajay Dadhich
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj248
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant wife in this appeal impugns the decree for divorce dated May 12, 2006 of learned Family Court Ajmer whereby the petition of respondent husband filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') was allowed, marital ties were snapped and it was indicated that the appellant wife was guilty of cruelty.2. As per the averments made in the petition the marriage between the appellant wife (or short 'wife') and respondent husband (for short 'husband') took place on December 2, 1999. After honeymoon at Mount Abu till December 23, 1999 the wife went with husband to Sagar (MP) where the husband was deployed as Lieutenant and wife stayed there till February, 2000. Thereafter the wife became pregnant and left Sagar for Bhilwara with her brother and mother against the will of husband. In April, 2000 the husband came on leave and took the wife to Ajmer where both resided together till May 6, 2000. After the husband left Ajmer for joining...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Lal Vs. Smt. Shakuntala and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2190
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This second appeal is by the tenant-defendant against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 25.1.1993 in Civil Appeal No. 27/91 reversing the judgment and decree of the court of Munsif, Udaipur City (North) dated 8.4.1999 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 136/81.3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit for eviction against defendant No. 1-tenant Manohar Lal alleging that the suit premises was let out to defendant- appellant by the deceased Jagjeewan Lal, husband of plaintiff No. l and father of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and defendant No. 2 in the year 1969 for a rent of Rs. 400/- per month. The said original landlord Jagjeewan Lal was in government service and he retired in the year 1979. According to the plaintiff, before that the plaintiff No. 1's husband with his family, was not residing in Udaipur where the property in dispute is situated. After retirement of said Jag...
Tag this Judgment!Sumer Chand JaIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2386
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this common order, three connected cases filed by the same petitioner- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5099/1998, S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 239/1999 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 568/2005 are being decided.2. In Writ Petition No. 5099/1998 the petitioner has challenged order dated 23.9.1998 (Anx. 11) whereby he has been reverted from the post of Supervisor to that of Class IV servant on the ground that there is no post of Supervisor in the Kherliganj Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Kherliganj, Alwar (in short 'the Society'). Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow him to work on the post of U.D.C. or in the alternative, to post him on the post of Supervisor.3. In this writ petition, an interim order was passed on 16.10.1998 to the following effect:Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why this petition may not be admitted.Issue notice of the stay application also. In the meanwhile operation of order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Lal and ors. Vs. Lrs. of Ram Dayal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2848
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This appeal is by the landlord against the dismissal of his suit by the trial court in Civil Original Suit No. 91/86 dated 14.12.1992 and which was upheld by the first appellate court in Civil Appeal Decree No. 95/94.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-landlords filed the suit for eviction of their tenant deceased Ram Dayal on 19.3.1974. The plaintiffs sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of their personal bona fide need. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. in the trial court on 14.1.1986 and submitted that before few years, the defendant has materially altered the suit premises and that fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only on 29.12.1985, therefore, the plaintiffs want to incorporate another ground for eviction of the tenant and that is material alteration in the suit premises. The amendment was allowed by the trial court and the amended plaint was filed. The suit for ev...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Executive Officer, Raj. Board of Muslim Wakf and ors. Vs. Islamu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3341
Vineet Kothari, J.1. In this batch of revision petitions filed Under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short, the 'Act'), a short but interesting question arises for consideration by this Court.2. Under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the Wakf Board may, whenever it considers necessary, establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas committees for the supervision of wakfs. The constitution, functions and duties and the term of office of such committees shall be determined from time to time by the Board and it shall not be necessary for the members of such committees to be members of the Board. The Wakf Board itself is constituted in accordance with Section 14 of the Act by a notification in the Official Gazette by the State Government and the term of office of the members of the Board shall be five years, vide Section 15 of the Act. The present Board was constituted on 27.10..2005 comprising of 11 members, 6 elected members and...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sira Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1745
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 768 of 2005 has been referred to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court by learned single Judge hearing the appeal. The learned single Judge after referring the catena of decisions had observed that the matter may be considered by Division Bench.2. Issue raised in this case is whether the insurance company with whom the vehicle is insured and has undertaken liability to indemnify the insured against the liability arising under Workmen's Compensation Act is liable for penalty leviable under the Workmen's Compensation Act for default in payment of compensation in terms of the statutory provisions by the employer of the workman. Though, it has not been specifically mentioned in the order about the dichotomy existing between the different decisions of the courts necessitating such reference.3. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the parties, who had argued before the learned single Judge that reference has been made of the afo...
Tag this Judgment!Urmila Devi (Smt.) Vs. the Director and Chief Executive, Rajasthan Pow ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN445
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court on 25.02.2003 whereby application filed by respondent No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2), C.P.C. was allowed.2. As per facts of the case, the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Udaipur for eviction and arrears of rent against respondent No. 2 on 15.05.2000. As per the plaint, it is mentioned by the petitioner that she is owner of the property in question because she purchased the same by registered sale-deed on 16.10.1999 and the said property is in occupation of respondents No. 1 and 2, therefore, she is entitled for decree of eviction on the ground of default and personal bona fide necessity. In the suit, provisional rent was also determined; thereafter, respondent No. 3 filed application on 04.04.2002 under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for being impleaded as plaintiff in the suit. It is stated in the application that the plaintiff petitione...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »