Rajasthan Court January 2009 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.
Anupam Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj790
ORDERWHEREAS there has arisen an urgent need for the Nims University Rajasthan, Jaipur to exercise its powers and perform Its functions pursuant to Section 5 of the Nims University Rajasthan, Jaipur A ct, 2008 in respect of the admissions to the programmes of professional study being conducted by the NIMS Institutions imparting Medical and Dental Education and other allied programmes of study being conducted, by NIMS Institutions of Indian Medical Trust, Jaipur.AND WHEREAS special provisions are required to be made to enable the Nims University Rajasthan, Jaipur to remove difficulties in admitting the students to the said courses conducted by the NIMS Institutions of Indian Medical Trust, Jaipur.Now, therefore, to facilitate the functioning of the Nims University, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the Governmenfof The State of Rajasthan does hereby notify that:(1) The programmes of the studies of all the batches of Medical (M.B.B.S.), Dental (B.D.S.) and other professional courses are hereby transfer...
Cto Vs. Sankhla Udhyog Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)12VatReporter11
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that the impugned order of Fax Board dated 26.4.2007 has since been rectified by the Tax Board on 17.12.2008, which is placed on record, holding that the sale of PCC Poles are taxable @ 12% as a cement product in accordance with the decision of this Court in case of ACTO v. Sankhla Udhyog (2008) 7 Vat Reporter 141, which is placed at Annex.4 in the present revision petitions. It was held in the aforesaid case against the same assessee as under:7. Entry 87 provides tax on 'articles made of cement'. Therefore, basically it is to be seen whether the article in question is made of cement or not? The word 'made ' as used in the entry is relevant and has its own significance which makes the entry wide. It nowhere provides that 'articles of cement' shall be taxable at the rate of 12%. An article means an independent and separated commodity and when it is manufactured with the inclusion of cement, then it necessarily means that the a...
Cto Vs. Shri Mirbahadur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj837
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Tax Board dated 12th October, 2006 whereby the Tax Board rejected the revenue's appeal, upholding the order of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the respondent assessee that the respondent assessee was not liable to pay the entry tax on the purchase and import of motor vehicles viz. chassis of a truck under the provisions of Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1988).2. The Tax Board held that the respondent assessee was a 'casual trader' and, therefore, the limitation for passing assessment order against him was only 2 years as prescribed under Section 30(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, the provisions of which were mutatis mutandis applied to the said Act of 1988.3. Learned Counsel for the Revenue urged that there was no basis or justification with the Tax Board to hold the respondent assessee as 'cas...
Rajendra Kumar Jindal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1361
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The callous attitude, lethargic conduct and the confusion created by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has brought the petitioner before this Court.2. In short compass the facts of the case are that the petitioner's father was a railway servant, who expired. The appellant applied for training as apprentice for the trade of Electrician. From 24.11.1991 to 22.11.1994, the petitioner underwent the said training at Loco Workshop at Ajmer. After, successful completing the training, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the 63rd All India Apprentice Examination held from 08.11.1995 to 15.11.1995. The petitioner appeared in all the papers, namely, Engineering Drawing, W/S Cal. & Sc. Social Studies and also in the practical. Vide letter dated 08.02.1996, the petitioner was informed that as he had failed in social studies, he was required to re-appear in the said examination which was going to be held in April 1996. Therefore, he applied for the permission to re-appear in the said ...
Shri JaIn Swetamber Nakoda Paraswnath Teerth Vs. Regional Provident Fu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ715Raj; RLW2009(2)Raj1778; 2009(3)SLJ114(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged its coverage under the provisions of Employees. Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.2. The respondent - authority under the said Act after holding inspection issued notice Annex.4 dtd. 21.3.1994 to the petitioner - Trust about coverage of said Trust under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner - Trust supplied the requisite information in the prescribed form, Annex.6 on record to the effect that the petitioner is a temple - Trust of 600-800 years old and it is neither a business nor an industrial establishment, but it is a temple and is a Trust registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, with the Devasthan Department. It was also stated in the said Annex.6 that looking to the historical importance of the said temple - Trust, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has exempted the said Trust from Income Tax. It has neither any profit motive nor is engaged in any business activities or industrial activities...
Kishan Raj Vs. Choth Mal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1750
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner/defendant/tenant is aggrieved against the order of the appellate court dated 26,10.2008 whereby the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement.3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for eviction under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950') in the Court situated in Merta where the said Act was applicable. During pendency of this suit No. 21/85 (28/91), a new Act - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001') was enacted and the said Act came into force with effect from 1.4.2003. In the Act of 2001, there is a provision for repeal of the Act of 1950 under Section 32 and by that provision, a liberty was given to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit within the stipulated period of time to file the suit ...
Mahendra Kr. Yogi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1892
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has preferred instant revision petition against the judgment of acquittal dated 5.7.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-Thana, Sikar (for short 'the appellate Court') in criminal appeal No. 06/2003 by which he quashed and set-aside the judgment dated 11.2.2003 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) Neem-ka-Thana (for short 'the trial Court') and acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 447, 323, 325 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.8.1998 an FIR No. 146/98 was lodged by the complainant at P.S. Patan for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 323 IPC.3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 447, 323 and 325 IPC.4. The trial Court after hearing read over the charges to the accused respondent, who did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter.5. The prosecu...
Hardev Prasad Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3340
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to grant him pension from the date of his initial appointment w.e.f. 1.7.1966 till he retired on 8.2.2000 instead of 6.7.1972 to 8.2.2000.3. Shri M.F. Baig, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that although initially the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 21.1.1966 (Annexure-1) and, therefore, on 12.5.1966 but since there was a break in two, he is not pressing for that period for qualifying service. He however was appointed on 1.1.1966 on ad hoc temporary basis for a period of three months and thereafter his appointment was examined from time to time vide orders dated 7.3.1967 (Annexure-4), 24.9.1968 (Annexure-5) and 13.9.1971 (Annexure-6) and each time with the stipulation that his services would be for the period of three months or untill duly selected candidates are made available. Factually, petitioner was ap...
Prem Puri Goswami (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj134
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to pay him pension and other retiral benefits for the services he rendered to the respondents on the post of Senior Teacher w.e.f. 3.9.1971 till 7.6.1993 on which date he resigned from services with prior permission to join as Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in the State of Gujarat.3. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Sr. Teacher with the respondents on 3.9.1971 and was posted at Government High Secondary School, Jaitaran in District Pali. He was assigned the work of Education Extension Officer from 1982 till 1987. He continued in the services of respondents till some time in the year 1993 when he came across an advertisement issued by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti for appointment on the post of principal of their school, It is not in dispute that Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is a autonomous organization funded and controlled...
Sohanveer Singh Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj178
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 30.7.2002 whereby his appeal claiming stepping up of pay in terms of Rule- 4 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998 was dismissed.2. Shri S.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Male Nurse Gr. II in the year 1983 and accordingly joined on 1.9.1983. The date of his increment became due every year in September. He was granted pay scale No. 12 of 1400-2600 as per the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989 and was fixed at Rs. 1600/- as on 1.9.1991. The petitioner passed B.Sc. Nursing on 30.1.1992. As per Rule 13, the petitioner was granted benefit of two advanced grade increments of Rs. 50/-each in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 1700 on 30.1.1992. Accordingly, on 1.9.1992, his pay was fixed at Rs. 1750/-. Since the petitioner completed nine ye...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›