Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1991Raj14; 1990(1)WLN64
ORDER1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the notification dated 1-5-87 Anx. 3 whereby the State Government appointed administrator in exercise of the power conferred under Section293-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.2. The ground of challenge inter alia, is that the impugned notification does not specify the period in the notification during which the appointment of the administrator shall continue. According to the petitioners the provision contained in Section 293-a is a mandatory provision. On the existence of the situations envisaged in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 293-A, the State Government is empowered to appoint an administrator by notification in the official gazette for such period as may be specified in the notification and it may also, by like notification, curtail or extend the period of such appointment.3. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that amendments made in Section 4(8)(b) and Section 11 of the Act by the Rajasthan Municipal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1979Raj14; 1978(11)WLN5
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J.1. All the petitioners were licensees for vending foreign liquor as retailers for Bali Tehsil for the financial year 1977-1978 commencing from the 1st of April, 1977 and ending on the 31st of March, 1978. In exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (Rajasthan Act 17 of 1969) in short the Prohibition Act, the State Govt. by a notification dated 20th of Oct. 1977 extended the provisions of the Prohibition Act to the area covered by Tehsil Bali with effect from the 1st of Dec. 1977. By another notification of the same date it has been notified that from the 1st of Oct. 1977, it would not be permissible for any one to either possess liquor or to transport it or to import it. All the petitioners have been served with notice issued by Excise Commissioner stating therein that as the State Government is introducing prohibition in the area covered by Tehsil Bali by extending the Prohibition Act from the 1st of Dec....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1987Raj8; 1986(2)WLN444
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition can be disposed of on a very short point regardingthe invalidity of the notification dated February 9, 1979 (Annx. 3). However, a few relevant facts may briefly be stated.2. There is a 'Jag Mandir Palace' situated in Pichhola Lake in Udaipur City. In the year 1962, Maharana Bhagwatsingh, Ex-Ruler of Mewar sold Jag Mandir Island along with Sister-Island Jag Niwas and other properties to the petitioner-company by means of a registered sale-deed. The Government of Rajasthan published a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Antiquities Act, 1961 (Act No. 19 of 1961) in the Rajasthan Gazette dated January 12, 1967 proposing to declare, inter alia, Jag Mandir Palace, Udaipur as a protected monument. The Jag Mandir was mentioned at S. No. 187 in the said notification with the following description in column No. 5. The relevant part of the notification (Annx. 2) reads as under : --'EDUCATION ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj13
K.L. Bapna, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Balotra, dated 6th August 1954 in suit No. 30/50. 2. The plaintiffs-appellants are Ramkaran, his son Bhanwarlal, Rameshwar and Ramrakh and the defendant respondent is Jethabhai son of Nensi Gujrati residing at Bombay. The case set out by the plaintiffs in their amended plaint is that the plaintiffs were carrying on business at Karachi and became displaced persons on the formation of Dominions of India and Pakistan. It was alleged that the defendant carried on business at Bombay under the name of Nensi Deosi and there was a branch of it at Karachi. This branch came to be closed on the formation of Dominions of India and Pakistan. It was alleged that on 20th September 1946 there was a contract between the parties by which it was agreed that the plaintiffs will cave delivery or 225 bags of Khopra at a certain rate to be delivered at the end of three mon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1989Raj124; 1988(2)WLN320
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This common judgment will dispose of the aforesaid nine writ petitions and three special appeals which involve for decision the same point, the special appeals are against dismissal of three similar writ petitions. 2. The common point involved for decision in all these matters is the liability for payment of passenger tax under the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959; and of special road tax which replaced the passenger tax with effect from Oct. 1. 1982 by insertion of Section 4-B in Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951 by the Amending Act No. 20 of 1982. The substantial requirements attracting the passenger tax/special road tax are the same. 3. The material facts on which the point involved has to be decided are a few only. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') isproviding free transport facility to its employees and their children for travel from home to the work site or the school and back by utilising bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1984Raj166; 1983()WLN583
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed that a writ of auo warranto or any other appropriate writ order or direction, may be issued and the second respondent may be ousted from the office of the Member Municipal Board. Ladnu.2. A few facts leading to filing of this writ petition are briefly as under:--Respondent 3, the Collector, Nagpur. appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer deedwana as Returning Officer for co-option of one woman member to the vacancy which had occurred in the office of Municipal Board on July 18, 1983. By the same order, the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to issue a notice to the members of the Municipal Board of a period not less than 7 days before the date of election and to get the notices served on all members and then take proceedings as per law. The Collector. Nagaur (respondent 3) annexed a list of members of the Municipal Board to this order. That list did not contain the name of Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj165; 1972()WLN111
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge Sri Ganganagar dated 29-8-68 dismissing his suit for damages for malicious prosecution for offences under Section 42 read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. While dismissing the suit the trial court awarded costs of the litigation as also compensatory costs to the tune of Rupees 200/- to each of the two defendants.2. Plaintiff Waryam Singh was an agriculturist who had his agricultural lands in his personal cultivation in Chak No. 26H, Tehsil Karanpur. Waryam Singh also resided there. His case was that lie cultivates his field with the help of a tractor and he had his own tractor No. RJK 4507 to which a trailer or trolley was attached. On 13-8-64 the plaintiff had sent his tractor to Karanpur with its driver for bringing diesel oil as also some Pucka bricks in connection with the const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2005)197CTR(Raj)1; [2006]283ITR486(Raj); 2004(3)WLC425
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In this special appeal, a short but interesting question that arises for consideration is whether the blending of different types of tea by the assessee amounts to production of a thing or an article by an industrial undertaking within the meaning of expression as used in Section 80IB of the IT Act, 1961, though it may not amount to manufacture of goods in the sense of bringing into existence altogether a new and different thing as known differently in the commercial parlance in the market where tea is transacted.2. The appellant-assesses has set up a small-scale industrial unit in the backward industrial area of Banswara. The appellant's case is that it purchased tea leaves powder/granules and these tea leaves are collected by marking the name of garden and lot number. The samples of available quality are dispatched to the 'Blend Master' who after going through his own process, suggests the mixing ratio and process of mixing for making the perfect blend of tea. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1999Raj298; 1999(3)WLC586
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. The question involved in this case is as to whether a person, who objects to a particular property to be the property of a Public Trust, could maintain a suit relating to that property under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The plaintiff-revision petitioner brought a suit under Section 22 of the Act claiming that Shri Narsingh Bhagwan Temple situated in Jalore was the private and ancestral property of the plaintiff which has been wrongly declared to be and registered to be a Public Trust under the Act. On the Temple declared to be property of a Public Trust, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Act which was rejected. He therefore filed a suit under Section 22 of the Act for cancellation of an entry regarding registration of the Public Trust as well as the suit property being shown as properly of the Public Trust. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that a person who is challenging the existence o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2003]132STC489(Raj)
1. These three writ petitions are directed against the order dated July 27, 1998 passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur, (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has allowed the revisions filed by the Revenue and set aside the orders of the Rajasthan Tax Board allowing the appeals filed by the petitioners pertaining to the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 by a common order.2. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are : that the petitioner-company is a manufacturer of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and beer, etc., and is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. By Notification No. F.4(59) FD Gr. IV/80-23 dated March 23, 1987, the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act'), exempted from tax with effect from April 1, 1987 the sale and purchase of beer and IMFL as declared for the purposes of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 195...
Tag this Judgment!