Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.196/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.183/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.194/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 4.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.195/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 5.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.230/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 6.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.231/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Kothari, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dinesh Kumar for the respondents. *** Reportable BY THE COURT: All these six revision petitions are preferred by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.196/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.183/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.194/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 4.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.195/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 5.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.230/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 6.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.231/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Kothari, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dinesh Kumar for the respondents. *** Reportable BY THE COURT: All these six revision petitions are preferred by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.196/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.183/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.194/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 4.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.195/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 5.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.230/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 6.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.231/2003 Indian Gum Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Kothari, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dinesh Kumar for the respondents. *** Reportable BY THE COURT: All these six revision petitions are preferred by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.21/2005 Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Somani Mills, Bikaner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.531/2005 Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Bikaner Woolen Mills Limited. 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.153/2005 ACTO, Circle-A, Ward 4, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Gayatri Udhyog DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. Dinesh Kumar Godara for Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the petitioners. Mr. Varun Singhvi for Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the respondent-assessee. *** BY THE COURT: Since common issues and questions of law are involved in all these three revision petitions under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 (for short, the Act of 1994), therefore, all of them are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. [2] At the threshold, while admitting all these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1 S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.21/2005 Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Somani Mills, Bikaner 2.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.531/2005 Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Bikaner Woolen Mills Limited. 3.S.B. CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.153/2005 ACTO, Circle-A, Ward 4, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Gayatri Udhyog DATE OF ORDER:29. hAugust, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. Dinesh Kumar Godara for Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the petitioners. Mr. Varun Singhvi for Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the respondent-assessee. *** BY THE COURT: Since common issues and questions of law are involved in all these three revision petitions under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 (for short, the Act of 1994), therefore, all of them are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. [2] At the threshold, while admitting all these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.4/2013 Deepa Ram & Anr. Vs. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. Date of Judgment ::02. d September, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. Manoj Bhandari, fro the appellants. ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed in limine. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the petitioners were allotted 14 bigha land comprised in Khasra No.651 in village Balunda for a period of one year by order dated 15.07.1966 passed by Tehsildar, Jaitaran; the nature of land was indicated as 'Gair Mumkin Nadi' (uncultivable river); it is claimed by the petitioners that since the allotment in the year 1966, they are in possession of the said land; it appears that on a complaint made by one Ram Sukh ('the complainant'), ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10837/2013 Smt. Meenakshi Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :05. 09.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. R.K. Rathi for the petitioner Dr. Pratishtha Dave for the respondents BY THE COURT : The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, vide press note dated 12.08.2013 invited applications for grant of permit relating to inter-state routes referred in Annex.A1 and Annex.B1 of the inter-state agreement between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Punjab. The notification aforesaid was published in Rajasthan Patrika daily newspaper edition dated 18.08.2013. As per the notification aforesaid, the last date for submitting applications in prescribed proforma was 26.08.2013 upto 06.00 p.m. The grievance of the petitioner is that no last date could have been provided for submitting the application to have permit. It is submitted that as per Section 80 of the Moto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9561/2011 Narendra Kumar Soni Versus Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur & Ors. Date of Order :05. 09.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Suresh Shrimali for the petitioner Mr. Joga Ram Patel for the respondents BY THE COURT : Being aggrieved by the judgment and certificate dated 03.09.2011 passed by learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur affirming the judgment and certificate dated 24.07.2009 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, this petition for writ is preferred. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord vide notice dated 24.02.2005 sought eviction of the petitioner tenant from the rented premises on the count of bonafide necessity. In the notice aforesaid, it was averred on behalf of the landlord that Mr. Sohan Lal desires to open a shop of readymade garments, thus, the premises rented is required. Suffice to mention that in the notice aforesaid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B. HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO. 9651/2013. Ananda Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. // 1 // 6 D.B. HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO. 9651/2013. Ananda Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. .. Date of Order ::9. h September 2013. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Teja Ram Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Mehar, Government Counsel. Mr. Tulsa Ram (RPS), Dy. S.P. Sanchore (OIC). Mr. Gumana Ram, SI, PS Sanchore (IO). Ms. Rekha, Lady Constable (No.370), PS Sanchore. In this petition, seeking a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner has stated the grievance that his daughter, allegedly about 16 years of age, had been abducted by the respondent No.4; and that he lodged an FIR bearing number 147/2013 on 12.04.2013 at Police Station Sanchore for the offences under Sections 143 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code but then, the Station House Officer of the concerned police station was not taking interest in searching his daughter. The petitioner has also sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B.C.W.P. No.2231/2009 M/s Shiva mines and Minerals V/s State of Rajasthan & Anr. Order dt:12. 109/2013 1/8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2231/2009 M/s Shiva Mines and Mineral V/s State of Rajasthan & Anr. DATE OF ORDER :::12. h September 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. J.L.Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.N.R. Budania, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Jangid, AAG & Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the respondents. --- 1. The petitioner in the present case has challenged the levy of land tax vide the demand notices dated 05.06.2008 (Annex-5), under the provisions of Rajasthan Finance Act, 2006 for assessment years 2006-07 raised by the Assessing Authority, (Sub-Registrar), Kolayat.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-Assessing Authority has not given reasonable opportunity of hearing and has issued demand notices without complying with the principles of natural justice...
Tag this Judgment!