Rajasthan Court April 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.
J.V.V.N. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Smt. Parinitoo JaIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj119; RLW2009(4)Raj2971
1. The controversy in this appeal is in regard to the electricity tariff levied by the appellants on the offices of Advocates under the category of Non-Domestic Service. In a case arising out of second appeal on the civil side, this Court in case of Sajjan Raj Surana v. JVVNL : 2002 (2) WLC 182 : AIR 2002 Raj 109 held as under:Thus categorisation and inclusion of profession of a lawyer as a commercial establishment or non-domestic service by the defendant (RSEB) or the respondent (JVVNL) for the purpose of payment of electricity consumption at commercial rate or non-domestic service charges under its any of the Tariffs of 1981 or 1985 or 2001 is absolutely illegal, irrational and arbitrary and therefore it is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Learned single Judge in the present case while relying on the judgment of this Court in case of Sajjan Raj Surana (supra) also held that lawyers profession is not a commercial activities and tariff imposed by the JVVNL to c...
Vishram Jetha and Sons Vs. Smt. Sheraj Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN170
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Contractor M/s Vishram Jetha and Sons being aggrieved by the award of the Commissioner under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 dt. 23.10.1991 whereby the said compensation Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 58,240/- in favour of the claimants Smt. Sheraj Bai W/o Sh. Mazid Khan on account of death of her son Mukhtyar Hussain alias Guddu while he was working on 28.07.1988 as workman in the course of execution of works contract by the appellant-contractor for the Railways.2. The claimants lodged a claim of Rs. 6,32,000/- before the Compensation Commissioner and after recording evidence, the Compensation Commissioner held that the workman was in the employment of the present appellant-contractor and determined the compensation of Rs. 58,240/- to be paid by the said contractor.3. Being aggrieved by the said award, the contractor has approached this Court by way of present appeal under Section 30 of the Act under whi...
Mazid Vs. Smt. Raj Kunwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN202
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsels.2. This appeal has been filed by one Shri Mazid owner of the vehicle namely Truck No. RJG 2771 being aggrieved by the impugned award of MACT, Chittorgarh deciding MACT Case No. 148/1988 vide order dt. 10.08.1989 whereby the learned Tribunal held that the respondent No. 3, United India Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in respect of death of one Bhim Singh to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and the balance compensation of this Rs. 50,800/- would be payable by the owner and driver of the vehicle. The total compensation of Rs. 1,00,800/- was awarded by the Tribunal on account of death of Bhim Singh in an accident which took place on 18.04.1986 while the said Bhim Singh along with one Moti Singh were returning back from Bhilwara after emptying the goods (Bhusa) at Bhilwara and while the said truck reached Railway crossing, it collided with another tanker from back side on account of rash and negligent driving b...
A.C.T.O., Flying Squad Vs. Derby Textile Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: (2009)12VatReporter74; (2010)27VST363(Raj)
Gopal Krishan, J.1. By this revision petition, the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Jodhpur is challenging the judgment passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 10.5.2000 in Appeal No. 92/97/ST/Jodhpur, so also, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 2.9.1996, whereby, the learned Tax Board, Ajmer upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 2.9.1996, whereby, the said authority quashed and set aside the order passed by the AA dated 3.2.1995 by which penalty of Rs. 15,600/- was imposed upon the respondent company.2. Brief facts of the case are that the goods in question was travelling in truck No. GJ-9/T-5438 from Bombay to Jodhpur and it was carrying 10 electric motors. At the time of checking physical verification was made by the ACTO, Flying Squad, Jodhpur and it was found that the goods were not accompanied by bill or bilty of the goods carried in the vehicle nor it was shown in the monetary form ST 18A. In such circ...
Kanhalya Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3426
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 29th July, 1987 rendered by Sessions Judge, Ajmer, whereby the appellants Kanhaiya Lal, Ram Prasad, Jagdish, Nathu and Manohar Das were convicted in the offences under Sections 326 read with Section 149 and 147 of IPC and sentenced as under:under Section 326/149 of IPC:Each accused sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200; in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.under Section 147 of IPC:Each accused sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The nub of the appellants' story is that:On 21st August, 1984 at about 9:30 a.m. the complainant was taking his bullocks to his field. He was followed by his brother Ladu. When the two brothers reached the bank of Motisagar juxtapose...
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Shree Gopal Products and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj121
1. Since on similar set of facts the common order dated 18-2-2002 passed by the learned single Judge is under challenge, all the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. Under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, the mandi tax could be imposed by an notification to be issued by the State Government. In the present case, the State Government vide notification dated 26-7-1995 as also dated 14-11-1996 granted certain exemptions on recovery of mandi tax in regard to newly established industries for a particular period. However, the above notifications dated 26-7-1995 and 14-11-1996 were withdrawn and cancelled by the State Government vide notifications dated 3-4-1998 and 7-4-1998 mainly on the ground that under the Act of 1961, there is no provision in regard to granting any exemption or relaxation on levy of mandi tax.3. The notifications dated 3-4-1998 and 7-4-1998 came to be challenged by the respondents before thi...
Bar Council of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand Sharma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj120; RLW2010(1)Raj301
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-11-1998 passed by the learned single Judge by which, while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, directions have been issued to appellant-Bar Council of Rajasthan to enroll the respondent No. 1 as an Advocate.2. There is no dispute that having qualification of B.Com., LL.B. the respondent No. 1, while working as Section Supervisor (Legal Cell) was authorized to act for and on behalf of the General Manager (Telecommunications), Jaipur District, Jaipur to appear, act and submit applications on behalf of the aforesaid officer. There is also no dispute that the post of Section Supervisor is in the clerical cadre. Be that as it may, the permission been granted by the department under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules of 1964, the respondent No. 1 submitted his application for his enrollment as an Advocate before the appellant. The request of the respondent No. 1 was declined by the appellate Court...
Rajkumar Taluka and anr. Vs. the Jaipur Development Authority Tribunal ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN33
Deepak Verma, C.J.1. With consent, arguments heard on merits. Record perused.2. This appeal is at the instance of petitioners against the order dt. 27.03.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in their writ petition No. 2463/1996, whereby and where-under direction has been issued to the Jaipur Development Authority (J.D.A.) to reconsider the approval of map granted in favour of the appellants strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and then only shall proceed further.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the light of the provisions contained in Section 17(4) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (here-in-after shall be referred to as 'the Act'), only State Government has have the power to reconsider the approval of map and J.D.A. does not possess any such powers to reconsider the grant of map in favour of the appellants.4. We have also gone through the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act, but do not find that J.D.A. has any power to reconside...
Sogani Brothers Vs. Kuwait Airways Corp.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3608
Dalip Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The decree was passed ex-parte against the appellant on 20.03.2003 for a sum of Rs. 3,17,040/- with interest.2. The appellant's case is that the appellant was not served with the notice as the notices were sent on the address which the appellant had left and proceeded to Lucknow and was residing at Pan Dariba Road, Charbagh, Lukhnow and, therefore, no effective service was made on the appellant-defendant and the decree was passed ex-parte. The learned trial court has not found favour with the appellant and, hence, this appeal.3. This Court does not want to go into the merits of the aforesaid contentions. Suffice it to say that in the Sogani Brothers v. Kuwait Airways Corp., interest of justice one opportunity for contesting the suit on merits is given to the appellant on the condition that the appellant-de...
Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3494
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This case has come up on an application for impleadment filed by Promuk Hoffman International Ltd. (`the applicant', for short).2. According to the applicant, it was one of the participants/ bidders in the tender floated by the State of Rajasthan for affixing of High Security Registration Plates on all types of vehicles in the State. Since the said tender was not granted to the applicant, but was granted to the petitioner, Shimnit Utsch India Ltd., the applicant had filed a writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3134/2006 before this Court. In the said writ petition, the applicant had challenged the illegal grant of contract to the petitioner. However, vide judgment dated 12- 8-2008, a Single Bench of this Court had dismissed the said writ petition. Thereafter, the applicant has filed a Special Appeal, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1387/2008, which is presently pending before a learned Division Bench of this Court.3. On the other hand, in the present writ ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »