Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(2)WLC204; 1994(1)WLN175
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common questions of law although they are based on different facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common Order/Judgment.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these two writ petitions briefly stated are as follows:FACTS OF BIRMA RAM CHOUDHARY'S CASE:3. Petitioner Birmaram was initially appointed as a Class IV employee in the Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jodhpur in the year 1971 and is still continuing on the said post working in its Phalodi Branch. He was confirmed on the post of Class IV employee vide Order Annexure-1 dated 15.2.1974. This confirmation order was made in pursuance of the decisions of the Board of Direction of the respondent Bank in their meeting held on 14.1.1974. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner applied for leave on medical grounds from 5.6.1989 to 13.6.1989. Alongwith his application for grant of medical leave, he also filed a medical certificate iss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2000]244ITR789(Raj)
M.G. Mukherji, C.J.1. This writ application has been filed by the Mahaveer Enterprises, Pindwara, District Sirohi, impugning certain assessment orders whereby the taxing authority levied tax on the writ petitioner as regards the sale of agricultural lands by the writ petitioner. There was a further prayer for quashing of the impugned penalty orders and a further prayer directing the respondents to refund the entire amount of tax, interest and penalty recovered from the petitioner on this account with interest. A general prayer was made so as to hold that the sale of agricultural lands does not give rise to any taxable income under the Income-tax Act irrespective of the fact of the location of the agricultural lands within or outside the municipal limits. There was a challenge to the vires of the Explanation inserted in Section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act incorporated by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1970, contending, inter alia, that the same was illega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)143CTR(Raj)252
ORDERM. G. MUKHERJI, C.J. :This writ application has been filed by Mahaveer Enterprises, Pindwara, District Sirohi, impugning certain assessment orders whereby the taxing authority levied tax on the writ petitioner as regards the sale of agricultural lands by the writ petitioner. There was a further prayer for quashing of the impugned penalty orders and a further prayer directing the respondents to refund the entire amount of tax, interest and penalty recovered from the petitioner on this account with interest. A general prayer was made so as to hold that the sale of agricultural lands does not give rise to any taxable income under the IT Act irrespective of the fact of the location of the agricultural lands within or outside the municipal limits. There was a challenge to the vires to the Explanation inserted in s. 2(1A) of the IT Act incorporated by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1970, contending inter alia that the same was illegal and unconstitution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1999Raj334; 1999(3)WLC645; 1999(1)WLN552
Chauhan, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the RajasthanHigh Court Ordinance, against the judgment/ order dated 19-5-99 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1484/1999, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.2. The facts involved in this case are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 granted a licence in favour of the respondent No. 3 Damami Sabha, Motilal Boarding House, Jodhpur, on certain terms and conditions vide order dated 18-5-1968 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition)in respect of the land measuring 2599 square yards for constructing a boarding house for the students belonging to Damami community near Perli Semetry, Masuriya, Jodhpur, Respondent No. 3 inducted the appellant-petitioner as a sub-tenant on a part of the land measuring 30' x 10' in the year 1991 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1400/- and the appellant-petitioner raised certain constructions on the said land and after obtaining licence f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2000Raj272; 2000(3)WLC209
Mathur, J.1. By these two writ petitions, constitutional validity of following portion of Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988', has been challenged :'207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit, etc., --(1) 'Any police officer or' and words 'seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle: Provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by Sub-section (1) of Section 66, he may instead of seizing the vehicle ..........' 2. In short. Section 207 of the Act of 1988 empowers a police officer or an officer authorised by the State Government to seize a motor vehicle, if he has a reason to believe that the vehicle is being driven with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001CriLJ800; 2001(2)WLC632; 2000(3)WLN39
ORDERChauhan, J. (1). The cases, deal with here, have chequered history as there have been several rounds of litigation before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in different forms at different stages and also before this court in bail matters.(2). The instant criminal miscellaneous applications have been filed for quashing the complaint (C.R. No. 403/1996) registered at the Police Station, Kotwali, Pali, as also the further investigation pertaining to offences under Sections 120B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 368, 388, 482 I.P.C. and Sections 17, 58(1)(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the 'N.D.P.S. Act').(3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that on 17.10.1996, one Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, a Practising Advocate filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, alleging that shop No. 6 in Vardhaman Market, Pali, owned by Smt. Amri Bai w/o Shri Jayant Raj had been taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(2)WLN635
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated April 17, 1998, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner, hereinafter referred-to as the petitioner' seeking direction to quash the Communication dated 10.8.1987 confirming the punishment of dismissal from service under Section 40 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The petitioner, at the material time in the year 1987, was posted as Deputy Commandant (Joint Assistant Director) Headquarters, Dy. Inspector General, Border Security Force, Bikaner. He was charged for the offence under Section 40 of the Act alleging that he used contemptuous and disparaging remarks in his letter dated 18.3.1985 addressed to Shri W.G.J. Mudaliar, I.P.S. Inspector General of Police West Bengal and letter dated 4.9.1985 addressed to Shri M.C. Mishra. Director General, B.S.F., making slippry remarks on the entire I.P.S. Cadre saying that they we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(3)WLC399; 2007(3)WLN569
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This writ petition was filed by a practicing Advocate at Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court with the following prayer:(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the RPSC to prepare a list of candidate to the main examination by accommodating all reserved category candidates first in the general category if such candidates secured position in the general category on their merit standing and thereafter prepare a list for the reserved category candidates including the OBC category;(ii) declaring the part of Rule 15 of the Rules that permits preparation of the list of candidates to be admitted to the main examination from the candidates who were taken the preliminary examination category wise as violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. It is stated that this writ petition was filed in public interest so as to protect the interest of other backward classes to ensure that benefit of reservation to OBC category is not de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(3)WLC269; 2002(3)WLN174
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Through this writ petition, the petitioners, who are six in number challenge the validity of the consolidated seniority list (Annexure/4) dated 28.4.1999 of the Officers of Rajasthan Judicial Service (for short 'R.J.S.) manning different posts in the hierarchy of R.J.S. as on 31.5.1998.2. The present writ petition has come up for hearing before us on a reference having been made by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 9.1.2001.3. In the first instance, two provisional seniority lists were published on 13.7.1998 inviting abjections thereto. One provisional seniority list [Annexure/1] related to Officers holding posts of Civil Judge [Senior Division] cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates and another provisional seniority list [Annexure/2] pertained to the Civil Judges [Junior Division] cum Judicial Magistrates. The provisional seniority list [Annexure/1] has been prepared on the basis of the respective date of promotion of the Officers from the post ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2003]131STC176(Raj); 2003(1)WLN281
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These appeals raise common issues of interpretation of the Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Exemption Scheme, 1998/Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1998, and effect of notification dated September 30, 1999 bringing about a change in the scheme affecting the claim of sick units which are engaged in manufacturing cement but have not availed benefit of exemption from payment of tax or deferment of tax previously. Hence are heard and decided together.2. It will be appropriate that before we set out the issues requiring consideration, we notice the facts relevant to these appeals. The State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 notified a consolidated scheme extending exemption from payment of tax for certain industrial units known as the Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Exemption Scheme for Industries, 1998 (hereinafter r...
Tag this Judgment!