Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(4)WLN557
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal arises under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 under Section 82 thereof. The substantial questions of law which appellant seeks to raise are as under:(i) Whether the payments made to the employees as production incentive under the periodical scheme and the night shift allowance are covered by the definition of 'wages' given in Section 2(22) of the Act?(ii) Whether the conductors and drivers employed by the Corporation who have no duties with regard to the production as such can be said to be covered by the provisions of the Act?3. It is not in dispute that the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is an establishment to which Act of 1948 applies. The controversy as emanating from the aforesaid two questions centers around two issues namely whether the production incentive paid to its employees and night shift allowance paid to the workers is included in the definition of 'wages' under the Act f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1989]73STC126(Raj)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. These three revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, these petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. The question involved in these revision petitions is that whether the respondent-assessee is entitled to the benefit under Section 5C(1) or not.3. The assessee is a manufacturer of sized yarn. He purchases the yarns and then processes them in order to produce sized yarn. A notice was given to him by the assessing authority, Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur, that the sized yarn does not involve a manufacturing process and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit under Section 5C(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessing authority found that the processing of the yarn with the help of other ingredients does not involve manufacturing in terms of Section 2(k) of the Act. Aggrieved against this order the assessee approached the appellate authority, but witho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj1991
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned orders dated 10.9.2008 (Annexu. 1) passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Barmer and order dated 18.9.2008 (Annex. 2) and 27.10.2008 (Annex. 3).2. Brief facts of the case are that, as per the petitioner, being active and vigilant in every sphere of life the petitioner developed friends but, with the passage of time, some enmity arose with his friends because the activities of the petitioner were in the direction of helping the needy and poor fellows who are struggling for their lawful rights and, thereby, serving the sociei' through his activities; and, on account of such enmity, certain criminal cases were registered against him, for which, as per the petitioner, he cannot be treated as an anti-social element.3. The contention of the petitioner, in the writ petition, is that he is contractor of various developmental projects run by the State Government, therefore, the activen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(2)WLN504
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. The judgment debtor has preferred this appeal against the order dated 19th August, 1975, passed by the learned District Judge, Tonk, in objection petition No. 32 of 1974, in execution case No. 8/1973.2. There was a litigation between the judgment debtor and the decree bolder. Compromise decree was passed. It was agreed upon that the decree holder will get interest from the judgment debtor at rate of 1.50 per cent per month from the date of the decree till the date of realisation.3. Objection petition was filed by a present judgment debtor in an execution petition & it was submitted that the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, applied. It was further submitted that the provisions of Sections 27 & 29 of the said Act, come into play and the decree which has been passed by the court below is a nullity, as it has been passed against the provisions of the Money Lenders Act. It was also submitted that more than Rs. 85,000/- have been said.4. The admitted position in this case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(4)WLC506; 2000(3)WLN113
ORDERBalia, J.(1). This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1 Sri Ganganagar on 28.10.87 by which the plaintiff's suit for recovering Rs. 19105/- was decreed with costs. Interest @ 10% since the date of filing of the suit until recovery was also awarded. (2). The plaintiff-respondent is a registered firm dealing in sugar and other provision. The appellant-defendant no.1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing the sugar and the sugar is sold to the licence-holders. Defendant No.2 is the part of defendant no. 1 who is alleged to have sold the sugar at fair price to employees of defendant no. 1 Company and is not a separate entity. (3). On promulgation of the Sugar (Price Control) Order 1979 on 12.9.79 by the Central Government in exercise of its powers u/Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the maximum ex-factory price of sugar as well as maximum price at which sugar could be sold in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(4)WLC533; 2007(3)WLN469
J.C. Verma, J.1. Maharwal Sangram Singhji was the former Jagirdar of Samod. He died on 15.2.1963 leaving behind him his son Rajeshwar Singh and widow Roop Raj Laxmi.2. Chapter III-B was introduced in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 vide Act No. IV of 1960 published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 21.3.1960 which had come into force w.e.f. 15.12.1963 vide notification dated 26.11.1963. It was a socio-economic legislation. It was decided to acquire the surplus land from the person in whose hands the land was concentrated for fair distribution to the land less agriculturists and other deserving persons with a view to remove the disparity in the holding of agricultural land and to increase the agricultural production. Section 30-E provided that the land would be surrendered from the date notified by the State Government and ultimately the date so notified was notified as 1.4.1966 for the purpose of declaring the land to be surplus is the hand of Khatedar so entered in the Revenue Board on the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003ACJ1163; AIR2002Raj226; 2002(4)WLC748; 2002(4)WLN41
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 14-11-1990 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. Camp at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby application (suit) filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed.2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that: a suit was filed by the appellant before the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 32,872.35 which was transferred to the Tribunal established under Section 14 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. 1987. The case as set up by the appellant before the Tribunal is that; appellant-firm had booked bales of cloth on 23-7-1986 by parcel train from Jodhpur to Hindatin City vide PWB No. 699790, dt. 23-7-1986. PWB was self. The appellant had sent the PWB to State Bank of India, Hindaun City with the instruction that the bilty be handed over to M/s. Gupta Cloth Store, Hindaun City on payment of Rs. 23.958.27. M/s. Gupta Cloth Store did no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2001Raj29; 2001(4)WLC462; 2002(1)WLN382
ORDERBalia, J. (1). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.7.2000 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt., Local Self Govt. Department, Jaipur whereby the petitioner, who is the Chairman of Municipal Board, Begun, has been placed under suspension under Sec. 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. (2). The brief facts leading to this case are that: in the last Municipal elections which were held in 1995, the petitioner was elected as Member, Municipal Board, Begun from Ward No. 5. Thereafter, he also came to be elected as Chairman of the said Municipal Board on 3.3.1997. It is alleged that on 14.2.1996 one Rameshwar Sharma made a complaint (Annex.1) against the petitioner that since the petitioner has filed his Vakalatnama in an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1996 Smt. Kamla Bai vs. Municipal Board, Begun) filed by one Smt. Kamla Devi against the Municipal Board, Begun in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh, he has incurred disqua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2001Raj62; 2000(4)WLC35; 2001(3)WLN63
ORDERMathur, J. 1. This miscellaneous application u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for re- hearing of D.B. Civil Appeal No. 134/1985 decided on 26.10.1989 afresh on merit. The say of the applicant is that as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 20.9.1990, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4769/1990 the case is to be re-heard and finally disposed of on the points urged before this Court and in Special Leave to Appeal before Supreme Court. (2). On 26th April, 2000 when the miscellaneous application came up for final hearing, Mr. B.S. Bhati appearing for the respondents invited our attention towards the order of the Supreme Court dt. 20th September, 1990 and submitted that no direction has been given for rehearing. It was also urged that unless the earlier order dated26.10.89 of the Division Bench finally deciding the appeal is recalled, the applicant cannot be heard on the points formulated in the application. Mr. Bhati also subm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]63STC78(Raj)
Mal Lodha, J.1. These 7 applications before us have been filed by the dealer-assessee under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954), for short ('the Act' herein), for a direction to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'), to state the case and refer the questions of law arising out of its common order dated 2nd March, 1979, passed in 7 revisions. These applications were pending on 1st May, 1985, when the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984) ('the Amendment Act'), had come into force. According to Section 13(10) of the Amendment Act, these applications are deemed to be applications for revision under Section 15 of the principal Act as substituted by the Amendment Act. We have heard them as revisions and propose to dispose them as such.2. The accounting years involved in these cases are 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessing authority levied purchase tax on ajwayan, sua, methi and pop...
Tag this Judgment!