1
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-27-2006
Reported in : 2008ACJ1414
Manak Mohta, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in M.A.C.T. Claim Case No. 75 of 1996 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellants' son, Milkiyat Singh, was cleaner on truck No. RJ 13-G 1755 and the said truck was going to Ambala (Punjab) being driven by the driver, one Sukhveer Singh. On 4.9.1995, when the truck reached at village Ghinola (Punjab), at that time another truck No. RRC 7166 also reached there, which was being driven by Kulvindra Singh, respondent No. 1. Both the trucks stayed there, tyre of truck No. RRC 7166 was to be replaced. Kulvindra Singh, his cleaner and Milkiyat Singh started to replace the tyre of the back wheel of truck No. RRC 7166. When they were replacing the tyre, the jack of the truck ( slipped as the land was wet due to rain, as a result of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-03-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2424; 2006(4)WLC515
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Petitioners Prakash Chaturvedi and Bhopal Chand Mehta by way of instant writ petition under the label of 'Public Interest Litigation' have challenged the validity of Rajasthan Private Universities Act. 2005, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rajasthan Act'. It is submitted that the Act of 2005 is liable to be quashed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Professor Yashpal v. State of Chattisgarh : AIR2005SC2026 , which more or less fully applies to the instant case. It is averred that in Prof Yashpal's case, Chhatisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavid-hyalaya (Sthapana Anr. Viniyaman) Adhiniyam 2002, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Chhatisgarh Act', has been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Rajasthan Act, for all practical purposes except some chances, is substantially similar to the Chhatisgarh Act. Petitioners have also challenged the validity of the impugned Act of 2005 on the ground of non-competence of Rajasthan State Legislative Asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-31-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2019; 2006(4)WLC315
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These four revision petitions filed by the Assessee-petitioner against the Tax Board's order dated 8.10.2004 are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The Assessee-petitioner claimed benefit of exemption from Tax under the notification No. 1082 dated 12.3.1997 which is reproduced herein below as under:S. No. 1082 : F.4(1)FD/Tax Divn/97-109 dated 12.3.1997.S.O. 307.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15, RST Act, 1994, and in supercession of this Department notification No. F.4 (8) FDGr.IV/91-111 dated 6.3.1991 (S. No. 840), the State Govt. (1) hereby exempts from tax, the sale of iron and steel on the following conditions, namely:1. That such iron and steel is used as raw material in the manufacture of iron and steel as specified in Section 14(iv), CST Act, 1956.2. That such manufactured product is sold within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; and3. That such manufacturer shall issue a declaration to this effect in For...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-03-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2028; 2006(4)WLC369
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel at admission stage.2. The issue involved in this revision petition is that whether the assessee was entitled to exemption from tax under notification dated 7.3.94 on the purchase of oil seeds as raw material for manufacture of edible oil. The notification No. F. 4(8) FD Gr.IV/94-57 dated 7.3.1994 (S. No. 923) is reproduced herein under the ready reference:S. No. 923: F. 4(8) FDGr. IV/94-57 dated 7.3.1994S.O. 187. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4(2), RST Act, 1954, the State Govt. (1) hereby exempts from tax under the said Act, the sale or purchase of oil seeds for being used as raw material in the manufacture of edible (or non-ediole) oil in the State, on the following conditions, namely:(1) That such manufactured edible oil is sold by the manufacturer thereof within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; andThat such purchasing manufacturer furnishes a declaration in form ST- 17 to the selling dealer.This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-20-2006
Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Raj)465; [2008]301ITR240(Raj); RLW2006(4)Raj2692
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated 19.9.2003 to the extent the order was against the Assessee. It was challenged by way of D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8/04 which has since been decided by a separate order dated 17th April 2006.3. Following two questions of law were framed while admitting the appeal on 14.7.04:1. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,78,980/- on account on cessation/remission of liabilities when the same liabilities were written back and the creditor failed to lodge their claim before BIFR?4. The question No. 2 was not framed clearly and needs some modification. The modified question required to be considered in this appeal, reaas as under:2. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law as well as on facts by deleting addition of Rs. 97,22,082/- on account of disal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-15-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)WLC421
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the instant with petition the petitioners-plaintiffs seek to challenge the order dated 13.5.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Shahpura (Jaipur) whereby their application for leading secondary evidence as per Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of the plot of land situated in Manoharpur, District Jaipur delineated in read colour in the map annexed to the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs is that they and their predecessors owned and possessed the plot in dispute since 1929 but when the defendants attempted to make encroachment over the plot in question, to carry out some construction thereon and further collusively obtained allotment letter from the Municipal Board, Manoharpur in respect of the plot in question, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-14-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2890
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The defendant has filed second appeal in a suit for eviction filed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity, default in payment of rent and subletting/parting with possession of part of the rented premises.2. The learned trial Court found the question of default in favour of the plaintiff and giving benefit of Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII 1950), hereafter to be referred to as 'the Act', the suit was not decreed on that count. Regarding the other two grounds, being reasonable and bonafide necessity, being covered by issues No. 5, and 11, and subletting/parting with possession being covered by issue No. 4, were decided against the plaintiff, and thus, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 6.3.79. In appeal, learned District Judge, vide impugned judgment reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 4, and held, that the defendant has allowed Tulsi Das to sit on the Chabutari,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-20-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj1976; 2006(4)WLC240
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The matrix of these three appeals is the judgment dated October 2, 2004 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City (for short the 'trial Court').2. The trial Court found that accused Daya Singh (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 11/2005) was guilty of offences punishable Under Sections 364A, 365, 343/120B and 346/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as under:Under Section 364 A IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.Under Section 365 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.Under Section 343/120B IPC:To suffer imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer six months imprisonment.Under Section 346/120B IPC:To suffer imprisonment for two years.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. The accused S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-26-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1683; 2006(3)WLC513
K.S. Rathore, J. 1. Brief facts of the case are that the non- applicant (respondent) moved an application under Section 3(8)(5) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, the Act of 2001 stating therein that since the applicant Red Cross Society was a corporate body under the Central Act and as such provisions of the Act of 2001 were not attracted and the learned Tribunal was having no jurisdiction by virtue of Section 3 of the Act of 2001.2. The petitioner submitted that the Indian Red Cross Society is a body corporate and was established under Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 (for short, the Act of 1920). As per Section 2 of the Act of 1920, the first members of the society were to be nominated by the persons who immediately before the commencement of the Act were the members of the Joint War Committee, Indian Branch of the order of St. John of Jeru Salem in England and the British Red Cross Society. Section 3 authorized the Committee to appoint the Managing Body of the So...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-02-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2381; 2006(3)WLC767
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 31.3.1984, allowing the appeal of the tenant-defendant preferred against the decree for eviction dated 5.7.1982.2. Earlier landlord Badri Narayan (appellant No. 1) filed on suit for eviction of his tenant Ratan Lai (deceased) which was registered as CO. Suit No. 832/73. The ground for eviction of the tenant was only default in payment of renl. The tenant was protected from his eviction otherwise than on the ground as provided under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950'). As per Section 13(1)(a) of the Act of 1950, in case of default in payment of mil for six months by the tenant, the landlord can institute the suit for eviction of the tenant but one opportunity is given to the tenant to avoid the eviction by making payment in the court as determined by the court Under Section 13(3) read with Sub-section (4) of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!