Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1168Raj; 1993(1)WLC415
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Order of reference dated October 6, 1982 (Ex.5) passed by the Government under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) and the award dated September 21, 1984 (Ex.7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, in I.T. Case No. 306/82 have been challenged in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. is an instrumentality of Central Government having its Head Office at Bangalore. It has 18 factories/ units all over India including the one at Ajmer. H.M.T. Shramik Sangh is a registered Trade Union of the employees and is recognised by the Managing Committee of the petitioner company. The respondent No. 2 submitted a charter of demand to the management of the petitioner company and then approached the Conciliation Officer cum Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ajmer. Since the parties could not settle the matter a failure report was subm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN224
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision-petition submitted on behalf of Mr. G.D. Chadha against the charge-sheet framed by learned Special Judge, Bharatpur, on January 14, 1972. The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that when Mr. Chadha acted as District Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur from June 8, 1960 to July 7, 1962, he had accepted gratification other than legal remuneration from persons as detailed in Annexure 'A' for doing favour to them and thereby he committed offence under Section 161, I.P. G The prosecution allegation further is that Mr. Chadha habitually accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to accept from persons as detailed in Annexure 'A' for himself directly or through Kundan Lal and Hira Lal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the said Act The prosecution also all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1980WLN590
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These 14 writ petitions arise out of the assessment proceedings under the Rajasthan Urban Land Tax Act, 1964 which is now known as the Rajasthan Land and Buildings Tax Act, 1964 as amended by the Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as the Act of 1964).2. Tne undisputed facts of these cases are as follows. All the 14 petitioners are the residents of village Rani Khurd of District Pali of Rajasthan. They have either been assessed or are sought to be assessed under the provisions of the above Act. The lands and buildings on which the tax has either been levied or is sought to be levied are admittedly in the area of Rani Khurd.3. It is also not in dispute that this court by judgment in Ummed Singh v. State of Rasjathan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 415 of 1977, decided on October 25, 1977) has held that the population of this village Rani Khurd as per the census report of 1971 was less than 8,000 because it was only 5653. It was also held that a municipality can be constituted u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ712Raj; 1996(1)WLC322
N.L. Tibrewal1. The petitioner Society in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the award dated August 17, 1994 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur in a reference made by the State Government under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).2. The claim of the non-petitioner-workman was that he was appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk on October 16, 1990 against a vacant post after due selection and calling application by advertisement. Initially, he was given appointment for two months and thereafter, vide order dated December 17, 1990, the period was extended upto March 31, 1991, but by another letter dated March 14, 1991, his services were terminated w.e.f. March 31, 1991. He then made a representation, on which the Honorary Secretary of the petitioner Society passed an order on March 18, 1991 that he be further appointed for one month and the performance of his work be examined, but, inspite of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]61STC83(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Dealer-non-petitioner No. 1, at the relevant time, carried on business of gowar gum and gowar churi. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward 'C', Pali (assessing authority), by his assessment order dated 22nd April, 1972, for the period 22nd October, 1968, to 30th October, 1970, charged tax on the sale of gowar churi at the rate of 2 per cent. He did not accept the claim of the dealer that gowar churi was exempt from payment of tax under item No. 9 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1964 (Act No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act'). The dealer (assessee) filed appeal and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur, by his order dated 9th January, 1974, allowed the appeal and held that gowar churi being cattle feed and being item different from gowar, falls under entry 9 of the Schedule and is, therefore, exempt from tax. The assessing authority filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board' herein). The Division Be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997CriLJ2170
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. On April 26,1980 PW-1 Ranjeet Singh, the then Food Inspector Niwai Distl, Tonk (Raj) noticed Lal Chand petitioner offering, besides other foodstuffs, chillies powder for sale at his shop at Niwai. After informing the petitioner of his intention to get the chillies powder examined by Public Analyst for proof of adulteration, if any, therein the Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of chillies powder for Rs. 6/- only, prepared three samples therewith, sent one of them to the Public Analyst for analysis and deposited the remaining two with the Local (Health) Authority.2. On analysis the Public Analyst reported that the sample of chillies powder was adulterated as the same did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The sample powder contained non-permitted coaltar Die of 'Red Shade' as well. The Food Inspector there upon obtained the requisite written consent of the Local (Health) Authority. Tonk and filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)IIILLJ150Raj
Kokje, J. 1. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation has come up in appeals against the decision of the learned Single Judge reinstating the employees who were engaged on daily wages, back in service with back wages.2. Respondents in both these cases were employees on daily wages. Respondent Vinod Kumar in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 539/95 was employed with effect from January 1, 1982 on daily wages for typing work. His services were discontinued from February 2, 1994. Respondent Naveen Kumar in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 540/ 95 was employed on daily wages for typing work on April 20, 1980. His services were also terminated from February 2, 1994 Both these respondents had filed civil suits challenging the termination of their services as illegal retrenchment. The trial Court dismissed the suits for declaration and injunction. On an appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction in view of the special remedy provided by the In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2000Raj142; 2000(1)WLC675
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The tenant-defendant-appellant has filed the present second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-1-1986 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No. 4, Jodhpur whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 8-9-1982 passed by Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit for eviction on the ground that the tenant has parted with the possession of the premises in dispute to his mother and his brother's wife within the meaning of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 17 of 1950).2. For effective disposal of the present appeal I consider it expedient to refer certain factual aspects of the matter in brief which are borne out from perusal of the record.3. The landlord-plaintiff-respondent Shri Jaidev instituted the suit against the tenant defendant-appellant on 6-9-1976 alleging that he is the own...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]64STC96(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The Board of Revenue by order dated October 31, 1977, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:On the facts and circumstances of the case what should be the rate of tax on sealed tins which are sold filled with vanaspati and for which separate charges are made in the bills ?2. Brief facts leading to this reference are that Shri Suraj Bhan Bhargava, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, made an inspection of the premises of M/s. Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Company Ltd., Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), on November 11, 1971. On inspection it was found that tins of vanaspati ghee of 16.5 kg. sold prior to October, 1971, the price of tins was not realised separately and sales tax used to be realised at the rate of vanaspati ghee itself. However, after October, 1971, the assessee started showing the price of the tins separately and charged sales tax at the rate of 3 per cent. The sales tax on vanaspati ghee was at the rate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1999Raj41
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 21-1-1998 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bhilwara in civil original suit No. 122/93 by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.2. The plaintiff Bhagwati Prasad-non-pet. No. 1 filed a suit against defendant-non-pet. No. 2 in the trial Court for ejectment and recovery of rent with the allegations that the defendant took the suit shop described in para I of the plaint on rent at Rs. 335/- per month for doing business of motor part machinery from the plaintiff and the former executed a rent note in favour of the latter. A perusal of the rent note shows that Lalit Kumar mentioned himself as proprietor of firm M/s.Pankaj Machinery Mart. Laxminarain Mandir Road, Bhilwara. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not pay rent as per contract and also abandoned the suit shop for the last three...
Tag this Judgment!