Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005(103)ECC152; 2005(186)ELT3(Raj)
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Amongst others, the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of tyres for which it has its manufacturing facility at Kankroli, Rajasthan. For the purposes of its manufacturing in Rajasthan of such tyres, the petitioner imports Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric (NTCF) from various manufacturers/exporters of other countries including from those situated in Peoples Republic of China. The NTCF so imported is comprised of three different varieties namely, the grey fabric, dipped fabric and Cycle Tyre Cord Fabric (CTC). The petitioner is also a member of Automotive Tyre Manufacturer Association (ATMA). The association represents the collective interest of tyre manufacturers.2. The Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry (ASFI), whose members are the manufacturers of synthetic fibre in India, including NTCF, submitted a written application before the Designated Author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj350
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The learned Single Judge, under its order, dated 9.8.2000, on having found conflict in two Division Bench decisions of the Court in G.N. Tandon v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1996(1) RLR 538 and Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal and 5 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 2000 WLC (Raj.) UC 343, referred the matter to the Larger Bench and the question framed for consideration thereof is whether Ordinance 67-A of the Rajasthan University Ordinances (for short, 'the Ordinances'), will prevail or the employees will be governed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1989') and the Rajasthan Grant-in-Aid to Education and Cultural Institutions Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Rules, 1963'). Though it is not specifically stated in the question but from the facts of the case, which have come on the record, we find that the dispute relates to the age of superannuation of the teachers in the Non-Government Recognised Affiliated Aided ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(3)Raj1892
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Aforementioned special appeal and the writ petition have been filed at the instance of one common appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) who was removed from service by the respondent Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the respondent') vide order dated 21/26.09.1981. The special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27th November, 1995 by which the writ petition of the respondent against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority Under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, l958(for short 'the Act of 1958') declaring removal of the appellant as illegal and directing his reinstatement was allowed. The appellant has also additionally filed the aforesaid writ petition by way of abundant caution challenging the order of his removal dated 21/26.9.1981 directly before this Court-under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the issues raised in the appeal and the writ peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)16VST387(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of 'sada pan masala', mixed with tobacco in the brand name of Geetanjali, Zafri 2100 Gutkha, etc. The petitioner as a manufacturer is subject to excise duty and is also liable to sales tax under the State sales tax or Central sales tax, as the case may be, in respect of the transactions of sale entered by it.2. Vide impugned notification dated January 3, 2001 'zarda mixed pan masala including gutkha and churi' was added to the list of commodities on which the levy of tax under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 was extended. The petitioner is aggrieved with the levy of tax under the Act of 1999 on its product when its brand is carried into local area of State of Rajasthan for use, consumption or sale within such local area. He has challenged the constitutional validity of the Act of 1999 and the aforesaid notification issued thereunder.3. Amongst other grounds, the petitioner has challenged the levy being u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2295
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have initially prayed for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the. petitioners and further restraining them from taking any action to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question situated at S-l, Poultry Farm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur measuring 7000 Sq. Metres. The petitioners have also prayed for payment of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for breaking down the entry gate in question and causing mental harassment.2. On disclosure of the fact that vide order dated 4.3.2006 the lease deed dated 17.10.2005 which was duly registered on 18.10.2005, as corrected on 19.1.2006, has been cancelled and the amount of Rs. 1,93,08,001/- was also refunded vide Cheque No. 770731 and the possession was also taken and further when the petitioners refused to receive the same then the order was affixed at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1223; 2009(1)WLN411
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 21.01.2009 (Annex.- 6), so also, fard (memo) prepared by the respondents dated 21.01.2009 (Annex.-6A). The petitioners have further sought direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to conduct their business in pursuance of the licences. In the alternative, it is prayed that proportionately exclusive privileged amount may be reduced by passing appropriate and necessary order and respondents may be directed to pay cost of liquor lying in the shop in question under the seal of the respondents.2. For deciding the controversy raised in these writ petitions, for the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 682/2009 are taken into consideration and discussed.3. According to brief facts of the case, for the purpose of regulating import, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquor and of intoxicating drugs, the State legislat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All these aforementioned civil second appeals and civil revisions involve identical question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties they are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCSA No. 139/09 Ram Narayan v. Smt. Asha Devi as a leading case.2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals and revisions are that the plaintiff respondent Smt. Asha Devi filed a civil suit against firm Ram Narayan Om Prakash for eviction of the disputed premises after serving notice under Section 106 r/w Section 114(h) of the Transfer of Property Act dated 6.10.2003. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.8.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), against which, one Ram Narayan the appellant herein filed an appeal before Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short 'the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this special appeal, an application has been moved with a prayer that in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 436/2009, Sukhdev v. Prakash Chand and other three special appeals on 16.04.2010, no intra-court appeal shall lie from an order passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this special appeal deserves to be dismissed being not maintainable in view of the above judgment.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent-applicant that in this special appeal, judgment dated 31.08.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5429/2005, Kartar Singh v. Board of Revenue and Ors., is challenged and said judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of power conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended that the learned Single Judge has examined the validit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. The important question which requires consideration in the present case is as to whether the first appellate authority, namely, Commissioner of the Income-tax (Appeals) or Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) have power to grant stay and decide the stay application filed along-with appeal/s filed before them under Section 246/246A of Act respectively or not. The concomitant question, which would arise is whether the power of the Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act of 1961 to grant stay is there with the Assessing Authority during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority; and how such powers of ‘treating the assessee as not being in default in respect of amount in dispute in the appeal’, have to be exercised by such Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act. 2. Before coming the provisions of the Act and interpretation thereof, a brief look at the facts in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SBCWP No.1211/2014 Bhanwar Lal vs. State & ors. a/w 6 connected matters Judgment dt:26/11/2014 1/83 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT (i) Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1211/2014 (ii) Rajendra Prasad Gora vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6249/2014. (iii) Tara Chand & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6250/2014 (iv) Ravindra Mohan Sharma vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6252/2014. (v) Balwant Singh vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6253/2014. (vi) Joga Ram & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6254/2014. (vii) Lokendra Kumar Charoria vs. State & Anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6255/2014. DATE OF JUDGMENT :26. h November, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr.Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, ]. Mr.A.K.Choudhary, ]. for the petitioners. Mr.Mahaveer Pareek ]. Mr. N.L.Verma ]. Mr. J.P.Joshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Joshi...
Tag this Judgment!