Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.109/2000 Smt. Archana Sabharwal vs. Bal Mukund & anr. S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.11/2000 Rakesh Sabharwal vs. Bal Mukund & ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT:21. t August1. 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT (1) S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.109/2000 (SMT. ARCHANA SABHARWAL VS. BAL MUKUND & ANR.) (2) S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.11/2000 (RAKESH SABHARWAL VS. BAL MUKUND & ORS.) DATE OF JUDGMENT :21. 08.2012 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Narendra Thanvi for defendant appellant Shri Rakesh Sabharwal. Mr.Prabhat Ojha, for defendant appellant Smt. Archana Sabharwal. Mr. Suresh Shrimali, for plaintiff respondent Mr. Bal Mukund. REPORTABLE :1. The present two first appeals have been filed by the defendants appellants against a compromise decree dated 25.08.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Abu Road, district Sirohi in Civil Suit No.52/96 (34/95) Bal Mukund s/o Shri Chiranji L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2844/2011. Alongwith Contempt Petition No.581/2013 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2844/2011. DIGVIJAY SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.D.B.CIVIL WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.581/2013 DIGVIJAY SINGH versus SHRI BHANU PRAKASH YETURU & ORS.Date of Order :: 16th December 2013 HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Mr.M.C.Bhoot, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arpit Bhoot ]., for the petitioner. Mr.Digvijay Singh petitioner present in person Mr.Anand Purohit, Senior Advocate & AAG with Mr.Pradhyumn Singh, Assistant to the AAG. Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Manish Shishodia ].Mr.Varun Singhvi ].Mr.Hemant Dutt ].Mr.Vinay Kothari ].Mr.Amit Tatia ].Mr.Falgun Buch for Mr.V.K.Mathur ].Dr. Chetan Rajpurohit for Mr.Vikas Balia ]., for the respondents. BY THE COURT: (Per Dinesh Maheshwari,J.) This writ petition (CWP No.2844/2011).filed on 29.03.2011, has been entertained ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2844/2011. Alongwith Contempt Petition No.581/2013 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2844/2011. DIGVIJAY SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.D.B.CIVIL WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.581/2013 DIGVIJAY SINGH versus SHRI BHANU PRAKASH YETURU & ORS.Date of Order :: 16th December 2013 HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Mr.M.C.Bhoot, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arpit Bhoot ]., for the petitioner. Mr.Digvijay Singh petitioner present in person Mr.Anand Purohit, Senior Advocate & AAG with Mr.Pradhyumn Singh, Assistant to the AAG. Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Manish Shishodia ].Mr.Varun Singhvi ].Mr.Hemant Dutt ].Mr.Vinay Kothari ].Mr.Amit Tatia ].Mr.Falgun Buch for Mr.V.K.Mathur ].Dr. Chetan Rajpurohit for Mr.Vikas Balia ]., for the respondents. BY THE COURT: (Per Dinesh Maheshwari,J.) This writ petition (CWP No.2844/2011).filed on 29.03.2011, has been entertained ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1195/2015 Smt.Mukut Raj Laxmi & Anr. Vs Dr.Jitendra Singh & ORS.Date of Order :: 26th November 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.S.C.Maloo for the petitioners Mr.O.P.Mehta for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.G.R.Singhvi for the respondent No.3 BY THE COURT: Imploring annulment of impugned order dated 15.01.2015 (Annex.5) passed by learned District Judge, Jaisalmer (for short the learned court below).the petitioners-defendants have laid this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. By the order impugned, the learned court below has accepted the application of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC in a suit for possession, mesne profits and perpetual injunction. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that fiRs.and second respondents-plaintiffs jointly filed a suit for possession, mesne profits and perpetual injunction against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.196/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.183/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.194/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 4.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.195/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 5.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.230/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 6.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.231/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Kothari, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dinesh Kumar for the respondents. *** Reportable BY THE COURT: All these six revision petitions are preferred by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.196/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.183/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.194/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 4.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.195/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 5.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.230/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 6.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.231/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Kothari, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dinesh Kumar for the respondents. *** Reportable BY THE COURT: All these six revision petitions are preferred by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.196/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.183/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.194/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 4.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.195/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 5.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.230/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 6.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.231/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Kothari, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dinesh Kumar for the respondents. *** Reportable BY THE COURT: All these six revision petitions are preferred by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.196/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.183/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.194/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 4.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.195/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 5.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.230/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 6.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.231/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Kothari, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dinesh Kumar for the respondents. *** Reportable BY THE COURT: All these six revision petitions are preferred by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.21/2005 Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Somani Mills, Bikaner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.531/2005 Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Bikaner Woolen Mills Limited. 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.153/2005 ACTO, Circle-A, Ward 4, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Gayatri Udhyog DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. Dinesh Kumar Godara for Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the petitioners. Mr. Varun Singhvi for Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the respondent-assessee. *** BY THE COURT: Since common issues and questions of law are involved in all these three revision petitions under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 (for short, the Act of 1994), therefore, all of them are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. [2] At the threshold, while admitting all these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.21/2005 Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Somani Mills, Bikaner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.531/2005 Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Bikaner Woolen Mills Limited. 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.153/2005 ACTO, Circle-A, Ward 4, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Gayatri Udhyog DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. Dinesh Kumar Godara for Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the petitioners. Mr. Varun Singhvi for Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the respondent-assessee. *** BY THE COURT: Since common issues and questions of law are involved in all these three revision petitions under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 (for short, the Act of 1994), therefore, all of them are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. [2] At the threshold, while admitting all these...
Tag this Judgment!