Rajasthan Court March 2010 Judgments

Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Nokha Cotton Industries

Court: Rajasthan

Vineet Kothari, J.1. These revision petitions have been filed by the revenue against the order of the Tax Board dated 15.5.2002 whereby upholding the order of the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), the learned Tax Board dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and held in favour of the respondent-assessee that for the relevant assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, the assessee was entitled to claim set off of excess tax paid by him on purchase of raw materials like diesel and raw cotton for manufacture of surgical cotton by him as per Clause 4(C) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 notwithstanding Clause 4(C) of the said Scheme.2. Learned Counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Mathur urged that:(i) Clause 4(C) of the Incentive Scheme under which the assessee is exempted from payment of Tax on the basis of eligibility certificate granted to it under the said scheme of 1989 on the basis of investment made by it for manufacturing goods within the State of Rajasthan cannot be giv...

Arjun Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1334

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. By way of this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioners have prayed to set aside the order dated 27.7.2009 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta as also the order dated 22nd June, 2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta who first accepted the Final Report (unoccurred) given by the police after completion of investigation and thereafter, in continuation of the order, he took cognizance of the offences under Sections 336 and 504 of IPC.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully perused the impugned orders.3. The sole question springing for consideration in the instant petition is, as to whether a Judicial Magistrate can accept the Final Report unoccurred given by the police after completion of investigation and take the cognizance of the offence on protest petition simultaneously by way o...

Deepa Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Sangeet Lodha, J.1. These writ petitions assailing the declaration Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894( in short 'the Act') published vide notification dated 5.2.08 involve common questions and therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the State Government issued a notification dated 7.4.07 under Section 4(1) of the Act, whereby 1424.81 hectares agriculture land situated in Revenue village Beethnok, Lakhasar, Chak Khuri, Gurha, Chak Madhogarh in colonisation tehsil Kolayat No. 1, district Bikaner was proposed to be acquired in favour of the company Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Corporation Limited ('RSMM') at its own costs, for excavation of the mineral lignite in the mining area covered by the said land. The persons interested were directed to submit their objections against the proposed acquisition of the land in writing within a period of 30 days of publication of the notificatio...

Lalu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Govind Mathur, J.1. Appellant has been found guilty ofcommission of offence under Section 302 IPC and has been awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara vide judgment and order dated 6.12.2003.2. As per the prosecution, PW-1 Suresh Chandra on 18.8.2002 at about 06:30 PM submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) with assertion that on the same day he and his brother were at 'Uparla Kuan' and his father Magniram, mother Badam, aunty Bali and Premi were working at Kali Pati field. At about 4-5 PM Lalu and Kishan both sons of Dalchand came and without having any right of way they forcibly proceeded with their oxes and cows for grazing. On objection they threw stones and on making cry Magniram came at the spot to whom Lalu gave an axe blow on neck. Kishan at that time was saying not to leave Magniram alive. The injured Magniram then was taken to Gangapur Hospital by jeep. On receipt of the information aforesaid a case was...

Ajay Vyas and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

1. Heard on application made by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. According to appellant, the delay is of 463 days.2. We have gone through the cause stated in the application and in our opinion, it constitutes a sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the delay. The condonation of delay advances cause of justice rather than to defeat it. There is no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in filing the present appeal and, therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned on the grounds stated in the application.3. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.4. Heard on the question of admission.5. Admit. No need to issue fresh notices to the respondents as they are being served and represented by accepting the notices by Mr. R.L. Jangid, Additional Advocate General.6. With the consent of parties, the appeal is hea...

Duli Chand Vs. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner claims that his correct date of birth is 1.4.1956 whereas the respondent Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. found that the correct date of birth is 3.1.1950. Treating that date of birth of the petitioner, the respondent sought to retire the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner thensubmitted SBCWP No. 11365/2009 wherein the respondent submitted that they will verify the date of birth of the petitioner again from his school record. On the basis of the said stand of the respondent, by order dated 16.12.2009, this Court permitted the respondent to verify the actual date of birth of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner's contention is right, then he may not be retired on the basis of date of birth recorded with the respondent.3. In pursuance of the order dated 16.12.2009, the petitioner was permitted to produce the proof in support of his date of birth, upon ...

U.O.i. Vs. Dilip Kumar and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

1. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 3435/1995 (U.O.I. v. Dilip Kumar and Ors.) under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against an order dated 20.11.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 343 5/1995.2. This is what the learned Single Judge observed while dismissing the writ of the appellant.:By way of impugned order at Annexure-6 dt. 22nd February, 1995 the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-workman and held that he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 6853/- as gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.Under the circumstances, without going into legality and validity of the order and any other question involved in this petition, this petition is required to be dismissed because of the meagre amount of Rs. 6853/- as gratuity is involved in this petition.Hence dismissed.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are inclined to uphold the...

Mangi Lal Vs. Nagar Palika and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 2.2.2002 (Annex. 5) and because of recovery effected from the petitioner in pursuance to the said order dated 2.2.2002, in support of which the petitioner has placed on record Annex. 6 whereby his salary is refixed.3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Safai Karamchari as back as on 1.12.1964 in the office of Nagar Palika, Salumber. He was confirmed on this post on 30.12.1965. The petitioner was then promoted on the post of Naka-Guard on 19.4.1977 and according to the petitioner, his name finds place in the seniority list published on 21.1.1993. The petitioner has placed on record abstract copy of seniority list as Annex. 1. These facts mentioned in para No. 2 have not been denied by the respondents in their reply specifically or even by implication. The petitioner was then promoted on the post of Sub-Nakedar on 1.10.1989 and his promotion was a...

Shankar Vs. State

Court: Rajasthan

Govind Mathur, J.1. Instant one is a jail appeal arising out of a shocking incident, where poor person with aboriginal background has killed two of his kin under a superstitious belief that one among them was a witch causing all odds and ills for his family.2. Learned trial court by its judgment dated 22.7.2003 held the accused guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000. Further to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine.3. As per the prosecution on 31.5.2002 one Rajeng orally Lakhma and elder brother Shankar. At about 7 a.m. on 31.5.2002, he went to village Noliya and his elder brother Shankar with his wife Leela were on tour to village Bargi from previous day to purchase clothes, leaving behind their mother and two children Ramji and Mukesh. At about 9 a.m. when Rajeng returned to home his nephew Ramji came AND WHILE weeping stated that Baba Shankar S/o Raoji has killed Lakhma and young...

Gordhan Lal Berwa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, while challenging order dated 03.08.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 96/2007, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:(i). To issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned judgement dated 3.8.2007 Annexure-9 passed in OA No. 96/2007 along with MA No. 109/2007 and order dated 27.12.2007 (ANNEXURE 11) passed in RA No. 15/2007 Gowerdhan Lal Berwa v. Union of India and Ors. by the Hon'ble CAT at Jodhpur. The case may be decided on merits and the reliefs claimed in the Original Application may be allowed to the petitioner.(ii). That any other writ, direction, reliefs, or orders may be passed in favour of the petitioner which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.2. According to facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Divisional Accountant at Banswara vide order dated 04.08.1995 and promoted to ...