Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj485
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.12.1999 passed by Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur whereby the application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act; 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondent has been allowed and the marriage solemnized between the respondent and the appellant has been dissolved by passing a decree of divorce.2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the application filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act on 1.11.1996 are that his marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 7.5.1985. Two sons were born, namely, Saptsheel and Anant on 19.11.88 and 14.11.89 respectively from the wedlock of the parties. The appellant was not happy with the marriage and from the beginning the appellant was behaving in a manner derogatory to the respondent and his family members. Inspite of the best efforts made by the respondent behaviour of the appellant did not change. The respondent complained of the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009(2)WLN187
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof for quashing of the judgment of the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur-I dt. 02.09.1996 (Anx.8) and those of Board of Revenue dt. 31.01.2003 (Anx.13) and 11.03.2003 (Anx.14) and has further prayed that the suit for correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the defendant non petitioners No. 6 to 16 may kindly be ordered to be decreed. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case, are as under:3. That the petitioner filed a revenue suit for correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendant on petitioners regarding 60 Bighas of land situated in Jamdoli, Tehsil and district Jaipur which had been allotted to Yasin Khan, father of the petitioner, on account of his being a soldier, by the erstwhile Jaipur State which h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003(2)WLN95
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These three appeals raise a common and identical issue, hence are being heard and decided together by this common order. The issue raised is whether demand of initial renewal fee payable by any applicant and paid along with application for renewal before renewal, can be enhanced on account of amendment in Rule prescribing license fee during the operative period of licence, but after the renewal has become effective, and where such amendment is not retrospective?3. The petitioner in each case was granted licence under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with Rajasthan Excise (Grant of Hotel Bar/Club Bar/Restaurant Bar) Licences Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Rules of 1973. Licence initially granted for the financial year 1996-97 was to end 31st March, 1997. Under the Rules licence is granted for a financial year (1st April to 31st March) and can be, renewed from year to year. The licence in each ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(4)WLC591
Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1996 and is having its registered office at New Delhi and a brewery at Daruheda, District Rewadi in State of Harayana. In favour of the petitioner, the respondent State of Rajasthan parted with its exclusive privilege to vend in wholesale excisable articles manufactured by it in the State of Rajasthan at village Ramchan-drapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur for the financial year 1998-99, the period of which was to expire on 31st March, 1999.2. The petitioner company had commenced operation in the year 1993 and the bonded warehouse was also established in Rajasthan in 1993. The petitioner had continued its operations under the licence until 1996. Thereafter, State of Harayana had imposed prohibition in that State. As a result, the manufacturing activities of the petitioner stood closed. However, when the State of Haryana revoked the prohibition in April, 1998, the petitioner restarted its manufacturing process and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2001]121STC102(Raj); 2001(4)WLC710
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This revision under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is directed against the order dated June 9, 1997 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the Tax Board has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee and set aside the order dated April 12, 1993 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. The brief facts leading to this revision are : that the respondent-assessee who is a dealer of I.V. sets [blood donor sets], moved an application under Section 12-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur for determination of the following question :'That the I.V. sets (blood donor sets) made of plastic is whether surgical goods or medicines because the Government of India and Government of Rajasthan has declared the I.V. sets as medicines vide Notification No. X-11014/8/88 DMS/PF a photocopy of said notification is attached in dup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985WLN(UC)56
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal as the suit for refund of Rs. 34,179.50/- has been dismissed by the trial court.2. The Civil Suit No. 2 of 1973 was filed by M/s Hazarilal & Company against the State of Rajasthan on 2-1-73, alleging that they are a partnership firm. The partners are Hazarilal, Brijlal and Dalip. The partnership has been registered under the Indian Partnership Act and possesses a certificate of registration. The three partners of the plaintiff firm took a Theka of the country liquor of Bolawali for the year 1969-70. The licence was issued in the name of the three partners. In accordance with the terms of the Theka, the partners deposited a security amount of Rs. 31,790/-and they were required to lift from the Government Godown a fixed quantity liquor after depositing every month a fixed amount. It was also agreed upon that the defendant State shall supply liquor on the tenth of each month at the rate of l/12th of the guarantee amount of issue price. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1976Raj121
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the decree-holder appellant filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on 24-10-1961 in respect of a shop fully described in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff sought eviction on two grounds: firstly, that he required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own business and secondly, that the defendant-tenants had committed three defaults in payment of rent within a period of 18 months. The defendants resisted the suit and filed their written statement on 18-1-1962 denying all allegations made against them. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed issues on 30-7-1962 and adjourned the case to 1-8-1963 for plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff landlord was examined on 1-8-1963. He examined two more witnesses on 4-12-1963; thereafter closed his evidence and the case was adjourned for defendants' evidence. Several adjournments were sought by the defe...
Tag this Judgment!