Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002]127STC586(Raj); 2002(3)WLN252; 2002(3)WLN252
Mathur, J. 1. This revision petition at the instance of the Department under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 22nd February, 1999, whereby the Board while allowing the appeal has set aside the order of the District Level Screening Committee and directed to issue the eligibility certificate to the respondent M/s. Meera Granites Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for the Industries, 1989.2. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondent Unit moved an application to the District Level Screening Committee, Rajsamand(hereinafter referred to as the D.L.S.C.) for the grant of eligibility certificate under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme of 1989) as an expansion Unit. The D.L.S.C. rejected the application on the ground that the Unit was not doing manufacturing work but job work of ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1978Raj1; 1977()WLN159
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This second appeal in execution proceedings by Maggi Bai is directed against the judgment dated December 9. passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, whereby he set aside the order dated November 12, 1975 passed by the learned Munsiff City, Jodhpur in Execution Case No. 83 of 1975. By the same order he remanded the case back to the learned Munsiff and directed him to enquire as to whether the landlord's case was covered by Section 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') asamended by the Act No. 14 of 1976. If covered thereunder, he was asked to proceed to execute the decree by delivering the possession to the landlord in accordance with the law but not otherwise. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant is the landlord of a shop situated in Ada Bazar, Jodhpur, rented out by her to Sita Ram--respondent. The appellant Maggi Bai filed a suit for eviction aga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1981Raj1; 1980()WLN233
Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (No. X of 1940) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 6, 1970 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar.2. The material facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are these:The respondent (M/s. Sharma & Co.) entered into an agreement with the appellant (the State of Rajasthan) on December 17, 1961 for supply of forty lacs of Pacca bricks to the Irrigation Department of the Government of Rajasthan. According to Clause 21 of the Agreement, all disputes arising between the parties in connection with the contract were required to be referred for arbitration to the Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation as may be nominated by the Government. The respondent (contractor) completed the supply by July 26, 1962 and a final bill was prepared on December 25, 1962. The respondent, inter alia, raised a claim for the payment of costs of 1,12,152 bricks and the concerned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1959Raj12; 1959CriLJ82
ORDERK.K. Sharma, J.1. The applicant Prabhu Dayal is being prosecuted in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur under Sections 166 and 504, I. P. C. on the complaint of one Milapchand.2. Summons were issued to the applicant and when he appeared he raised an objection that the prosecution was bad because no sanction of the State Government under Section 197, Cr. P. C., hadbeen obtained by the complainant, He also raised an objection that the prosecution was bad by virtue of Section 79 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties overruled the objections on the ground that at that stage there was nothing to show that the accused had committed the offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The applicant went in revision and the learned Additional District Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur agreed with the learned Trial Magistrate and dismissed the application. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1969()WLN615
Bhargava, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred for decision by the Division Bench to the Full Bench.'Whether the amount of annual maintenance allowance payable to persons entitled to such allowance under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, should be determined after taking into account the amount of money payable by the Jagirdar to his creditors under the provisions of the Rajasthan Jagirdars' Debt Reduction Act, 1956, or not?'2. The Board of Revenue which is one of the respondents in the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in its order dated 25-10-1962 held that 'in fixing the amount for maintenance the question of the Jagirdar's debt does not find any place under the law' and, therefore, directed the Additional Jagir Commissioner to determine afresh the amount of maintenance which they are entitled to receive in accordance with law.3. The petitioner who holds a decree against the Jagirdar i.e....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1979Raj44; 1977()WLN332
A.P. Sen, AG. C.J.1. This is a reference to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the correctness of the decisions of Jagat Narayan J., in Rajeshwar Dayal v. Padam Kumar Kothari (1969 Raj LW 546) : (AIR 1970 Raj 77) and reiterated by him in Kedarnath v. Pana Devi (1972 WLN 501) 8 (AIR 1973 Raj 24) holding that an application by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a new ground of eviction viz., on the ground of default based on Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, be allowed under Section 153 or Order 16, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where such ground arises after the institution of a suit for the eviction of the defendant on one or more of the grounds set forth in Section 13 (1) of the Act, inasmuch as that would be tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to include a cause of action which had not accrued on the date of the suit,2. The parties stand in the relationship of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1335; 1991(2)WLN398
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this bail application Under Section 439, Cr. P.C. for his release in criminal case FIR No. 196/1991.The accusation against the petitioner is that Charas weighing 7 grms. and 500 Ml. grms. were recovered from his possession on Sept. 12, 1991. A report of the incided was lodged at P.S. Kunhadi-Kota by Sh. Mohan Singh, S.H.O. On the said report, Crime No. 196/91 Under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1988 was registered. In the report, the age of the petitioner has been given as 17 years.2. The petitioner moved an application for grant of his bail under Section 439, Cr. P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Kota, but his application was rejected on the ground that as per medical report, the age of the petitioner is between 14 to 15 years, as such, he is a child within the definition of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), as such, the order of bail cannot be passed by any Court constituted under the Code of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ445Raj
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. In all these petitions, the petitioner i.e. The Sriganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., Sriganganagar has challenged various orders made by the authorities under the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. All petitions have been made under Section 28-A of that Act given by different employees for different reliefs. However, one common question arises in all these petitions and on the decision of that question the fate of all these cases lies. All these petitions are being decided by this common order as the question is common to all and the jurisdictional question comes to the root of all the matters.2. The relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent is not disputed. That the respondents are employees of the petitioner Sugar Mills is not disputed. That particular 'workman' as contemplated by the Industrial Disputes Act or some other beneficial Legislation cannot be disputed. The only question which arise in these cases for a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1995)ILLJ292Raj; 1994(1)WLN231
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. Since the aforesaid two writ petitions raise a common question of law and the facts of both these writ petitions are almost the same excepting the name of the respondent No. 3 and the duration of their service period, as such these writ petitions are decided by this common judgment by dealing with the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1796 of 1991.2. The petitioners, by this writ petitions, havechallenged the order dated January 1, 1991, passed by the Authority appointed under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Bikancr Region, Bikaner, by which the learned Authority allowed the applications filed by the non-petitioners Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and quashed the order dated August 21, 1986, passed by petitioner M/s. Rajmata Badheliji Surdanshan Kumariji of Bikaner Trust, Junagarh, Bikaner (for short, 'the Trust'),terminating the services of the applicants Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and directing the non-applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1984Raj8; 1983()WLN228
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision has been referred by one of us (Agrawal, J.) to the Division Bench as it involves an important question of law whether the amendments introduced in Section 6 of the Rajas-than Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (for short 'the Act1) by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No. XXVI of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') which Was promulgated on September 29, 1975 and which was subsequently replaced by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act. 1976 ('the Amendment Act' hereinafter) fall in the category of amendments which are intended to have retrospective operation or they fall in the category of amendments which do not have retrospective operation.2. We may first notice the, material facts, The non-petitioner (plaintiff-tenant) instituted a suit on April 29, 1970 against the petitioner (defendant-landlord) under Section 6 of th...
Tag this Judgment!