Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2778; 2006(3)WLC520
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Since all these writ petitions are involving similar question of law and facts, the same are decided by this common judgment.2. In the writ petition preferred by Dr. Rakesh Soni & Others, the petitioners who were in service Medical Officers and regularly selected by the RPSC and serving as Medical Officer at different Health Centers, are challenging the consideration of candidates for admission in P.G. course in the category of in service who are serving on contract basis.3. The University of Rajasthan issued an Instruction Booklet of Pre P.G. Medical Examination for Admission to MD/MS Diploma Course in the Medical Colleges of Rajasthan. Candidates eligible as per the Ordinance 278-E and 278-G of the University of Rajasthan were required to appear in the aforesaid Examination.4. Total seats for admission to MD/MS/Diploma courses to be filled by the aforesaid examination are 432. Out of which, 50% are to be filled in on the basis of result of All India Basis. Remainin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj118
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 86/81 has been preferred by defendant-Municipal Board, Bikaner against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1979 by which the trial court granted decree for perpetual injunction against the appellant-defendant Municipal Board, holding that the plot in dispute shall not be sold by auction on objection of defendant No. 2 but in case any neighbour raises any objection against the disposal of the land under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules of 1974'), then the land be disposed of by public auction. The appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 5.11.1080.S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 91/1981 is also against the same judgments and decrees referred above but by defendant No. 2, who is also seeking allotment of land in his fat our.3. The facts which are not in di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
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
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2313; 2006(4)WLC159
N.P. Gupta, J.1. All these writ petitions arise in identical circumstances, and involve common question of law, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. The petitioners seek direction in these writ petitions, to be given admission in the B.S.T.C. correspondence course, in pursuance of Annexure 9 and 10, so also to be allowed to continue to pursue the course, and after successfully passing the examination they may be issued the degree of B.S.T.C. Course. It is also prayed, in the alternative, that if in future any B.S.T.C. correspondence course is conducted by any of the fresh advertisement, than the petitioners may be considered for giving them the BSTC training through correspondence, on preferential basis. The fourth prayer made is, to reinstate the petitioners in the services of Shiksha Mitra, or on any equivalent post, and after passing the B.S.T.C. course, their services may be regularised.3. At the beginning of the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007ACJ1477
R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The appellants have challenged the award dated 11.11.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Beawar (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal') whereby an award of Rs. 3,12,000 has been passed for the death of Sharawan Kumar to the claimants.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.4.1999, along with others, Sharawan Kumar was travelling in a jeep. As soon as the jeep reached near the village Kharwa, a tanker bearing registration No. RJ 06-G 1442, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came and collided with the said jeep. Consequently, four persons had died including Sharawan Kumar. Since the aged parents, the widow, the minor children were suddenly left without a breadwinner, they filed a claim petition along with others. Since Sharawan Kumar had earlier lost his brother, Mishri Lal, even his widow and minor children were financially dependent on Sharawan Kumar. Hence, they also joined as claimants in the claim petition....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
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
Reported in : (2006)206CTR(Raj)472; [2006]286ITR126(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The application has been moved under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question as question of law arising from the order dated May 26, 1997, of the Tribunal passed in I. T. A. No. 1343/JP/95 relating to the assessment year 1990-91:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax 3. The Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order on December 30, 1992. The Commissioner of Income-tax, considering that the assessment order has been passed without following proper enquiry which has resulted in an erroneous assessment order and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, issued notice under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in exercise of his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : III(2006)ACC286
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant Insurance Company is challenging the award dated 9.11.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,96,000 to the claimant-respondents for the death of Bhagwan Meena.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.2.2004 Bhagwan Meena and others were travelling in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ-20-T-0940, from Kota to Bundi on National Highway. When they reached near Badgaon, a truck, bearing Registration No. PB-4B-9982, being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the said jeep. Consequently, Bhagwan Meena and one smt. Jamila died on the spot and one Banshilal sustained injuries. Left without the bread earner, wanting some compensation for the sudden death, the respondentNos. 1 to 7 filed aclaim petition before the Tribunal. Since three different claim petitions were filed arising out of the same accident, the learned Tribunal by a common award was pleased to award the compensation as aforement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
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
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3873; RLW2006(3)Raj2217; 2006(4)WLC296
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Wanting to pick some chinks in the armour of the prosecution, the petitioner filed two different applications under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short) before the learned trial Court. However, vide order dated 4.10.2004, the learned trial Court rejected the said applications by a common order. Hence, this petition before us.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner allegedly kidnapped Smt. Sumedha Durlabhji, a member of a prominent family of Jaipur. He is facing a trial for offences under Sections 364-A, 341 and 120-B IPC. During the course of the trial, the petitioner moved two applications under Section of the Code. In the first application dated 24.9.2004, he pointed out that Mr. Hemant Sharma, who was working in the Police Department in the Jodhpur Range, and Mr. Umaid Singh who was functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the ACP and few other police officers were constituted int...
Tag this Judgment!