Rajasthan Court March 2010 Judgments

Lahar Ice Cream Factory Masooriya Vs. Acto

Court: Rajasthan

Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Tax Board dated 6th October, 2008 whereby the Tax Board has held against the assessee that the assessee, manufacturer and seller of ice cream /ice-candy does not fall within the ambit and scope of Notification No. 815 : F.4(72)FDGr.IV/87-43 dated 27.6.1990.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assessee Mr. Dinesh Mehta argued that the said assessee can fall within the scope of term 'other eating establishment' employed in the aforesaid notification.3. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Mathur appearing for Revenue submitted that the class of dealers specified in the said notification did not include the manufacture of any eating items and, therefore, the ice cream manufacturer, the present assessee cannot fall within the scope of said notification and, therefore, the Tax Board was justified in denying the said benefit to the assessee.4. Having heard learned Counsels and upon perusal of the said notification, whic...

Girvar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

ORDER1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of judgment dated 10.05.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 37/1998, whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner against order of removal dated 20.11.1993 and confirmed vide order dated 13.04.1997 by the appellate authority.2. Admittedly, after taking into consideration the procedure laid down in the rules, the services of the petitioner were terminated and during litigation the impugned judgment was passed by the Tribunal in the fifth round of litigation. Earlier, number of times, the matter came before the Tribunal and was remanded back from time to time. Last order of the Tribunal was passed on 13.05.1996 in original application No. 49/1995, in which, order of the appellate authority was challenged mainly on the ground that three ingredients contained in R...

Raju Singh @ Raju and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1994, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No. 3/1994 whereby the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioners and affirmed the judgment and order dated 18.02.1994, as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal Case No. 87/1987, convicting the accused-petitioners for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentencing each of them to simple imprisonment for 3 months.2. The accused-petitioners were tried for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, when the charge-sheet was filed after investigation on the FIR lodged by Lekh Raj (PW-2) on 28.01.1987 with the allegations that he found the door hasp broken and various silver articles missing from his shop. During the course of investigation, the stolen silver articles were recovered from the possession of the present petitioners. After framing of th...

Late Lajpat Rai Through L.Rs. Vs. Late Jorawar Singh Through L.Rs.

Court: Rajasthan

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This civil first appeal was initially filed by defendant late Lajpat Rai under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against judgment and decree dated 04.02.1986 passed by Addl. District Judge, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 1/81 (36/79), whereby, learned trial Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of contract.2. The above appeal was filed by late Lajpat Rai against plaintiff late Jorawar Singh and, on the date of filing the appeal, both the parties were alive; but, during the pendency of this appeal, both appellant and respondent died. Due to death of original plaintiff- respondent Jorawar Singh on 10.07.1998 his legal representatives were taken on record vide order dated 16.03.1999. Similarly, defendant-appellant Lajpat Rai also died and vide order dated 15.03.1997, legal representatives of defendant-appellant were taken on record. Thereafter, necessary amended cause-title has been filed.3. According to facts of ...

Mehta Construction Company Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2000 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed with costs the writ petition (CWP No. 4898/1990) filed by the petitioner-appellant against the demand notice dated 15.09.1990 (Annex.1) as issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishangarh for recovery of an amount of Rs. 99,028.61.2. The writ petition aforesaid was filed with the averments, inter alia, that the petitioner-appellant, a registered partnership firm, submitted its tender in response to the notice inviting tenders ('NIT') for execution of the work of excavation of RMC Chain 320-350 subject to certain conditions and the appellant did not withdraw from the condition though asked for by the Executive Engineer, Som Kambla Amba Canal Division by the letter dated 22.05.1979 (Annex.4); that under the telegram dated 31.08.1979, the Superintending Engineer Irrigation, Construction Circle, Udaipur stated that the tender aforesaid ...

Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 23rd March 2001 passed in OA No. 185 of 1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the OA filed by petitioner challenging the impugned order/notice dated 10th May 1996 issued by respondent No. 2 with the prayer that respondents be restrained from terminating the services of the applicant and treat the applicant as an employee having permanent status.2. As per the facts of the case, petitioner was appointed after due selection and having been satisfied with the eligibility by the competent authority vide order dated 28th June 1982 on the post of Senior Translator (Hindi), a civilian job. At the time of appointment, method prescribed for regular appointment was taken into consideration and petitioner was directed to appear in written test as well as for interview and th...

Daula and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short) is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 13.08.1985 rendered in Sessions Case No. 70 of 1983 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, by which accused-appellants Daula alias Daulat Ram, Mander Singh, Brij Lal, Satya Narayan, Devi Lal and Shokaran ('accused A-1 to A-6', for short) have been convicted for commission of the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused A-3 Brijlal and A-6 Shokaran have also been convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and accused appellants Daula alias Daulat Ram, Mander Singh Satya Narayan and Devilal,(respectively A-1, A-2, A-4 & 5) have further been convicted for the offence under Section 147 and each one of them have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment fo...

Himmat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Govind Mathur, J.1. By judgment dated 31.10.2003 learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-I), Dungarpur convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 450 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as follows:Section 302 IPC: life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment.Section 450 IPC: five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that on 27.7.2002 one Gomna (PW-10) submitted a written report at Police Station Ganeshpur and as per that in the night of 26.7.2002 Gomna and his son Bhagwan were coming together from Punali turn to Ghatikada turn wherefrom they both proceeded to their respective houses. In the morning of 27.7.2002 at about 06:00 AM Nathu called Gomna and informed that outer door of Bhagwan's house was lying open with blood stains in compound. Gom...

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1146

M.N. Bhandari, J.1. By this Criminal Misc. Petition, order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu has been challenged.2. Before going into the merits of the case, learned Counsel for petitioner was asked to address this Court regarding maintainability of the petition before Permanent Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur.3. learned Counsel for petitioner submits that a case Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') has been initiated at Churu though cheque bearing No. 50158 was issued for Bank of Punjab Limited, Station Road, Jaipur. The complainant deposited cheque in a saving bank account at Churu, but was dishonoured by Bank of Punjab Limited at Jaipur. The cause of action to the complainant, thus, arose at Jaipur. It is stated that even if case is tried at Churu, a petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C') can be maintained before the Jaipur Bench as cause of action to the complaina...

Rajendra Singh Sisodia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 241/07, whereby, the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner and further directed that the respondents shall finalize the departmental proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order as the incident mentioned in the charge-sheet related to the year 1995. Applicant-petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings fully.2. As per brief facts of the case, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide charge memo dated 16.08.2007. In the charge-sheet, three articles of charges against the petitioner relating to the incident of year 1995, in respect of which a criminal case was a...