Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1977WLN513
M.L. Jain, J.1. Both these petitions, namely, Nos. 1126/1972 and 1117/1972 raise common questions of law, and shall be disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the writ petition No. 1126/1972 are that the petitioner despatched 1115.4 metric tonnes of stone from the Railway Station, Tinwari, District Jodhpur. The Mines Department of the State Govt. found that the petitioner had excavated the said stone during the period from 26-2-66 to 3 12 69. It proceeded to issue a notice on 17-9-70 to the petitioner that the mineral was excavated without any lease, licence or permit and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1951 26 p. against royalty amount within a period of 7 days. It was also said that on failure to so deposit the amount, recovery proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1956, will be taken. In reply to the notice, the petitioner stated that he had purchased stone from the market at Jodhpur from where he brought it to Tinwari and despatched. He was not therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2008Raj61; RLW2008(2)Raj1796
ORDER1. This bunch of writ petitions (detailed in Schedule-A) have been filed before the Division Bench, seeking to challenge the orders passed by the Collector, under Chapters IV, V and Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 29 and/or Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, and seeking to challenge the validity of the provisions of proviso to Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, and since for the present purposes they involve the common question of law, petitions are being disposed by this common order.2. We need not encumber the Judgment by narrating facts of each individual case, and may confine our Judgment to the validity of provisions noticed above only, as the matters have come up before Division Bench only on account of validity of above provisions having been challenged.3. To start with, we may be gainfully reproduce the provisions of Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as a whole, which reads as under:65. Revision by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(2)WLC292; 1996(2)WLN445
R.R. Yadav, J.1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner questions legality and validity of his dismissal order dated 23.1.90 Annx.29 passed by respondent No. 2 and older dated 19.4.90 Annx.33 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing his appeal.2. The aforesaid two orders have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that he was appointed by the General Manager (respondent No. 3) whereas dismissal order has been passed by the Superintending Engineer (Drilling) (respondent No. 2) who is admittedly lower in rank to respondent No. 3. No charge-sheet and materials in support thereof have been supplied during domestic enquiry which has caused serious prejudice to him. He was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing and the orders impugned have been passed against the principles of natural justice and fair play.3. The factual genesis of the present case has a chequered history. It is alleged that the petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1060 of 1989 b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj123
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant, against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner, dt. 22.4.1987, decreeding the plaintiffs' suit for Rs. 19,229.49, along with interest from the date of suit, being 19.1.1982, till recovery, along with cost.2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, being a partnership firm, and the partners of the firm, filed a suit against the defendants, alleging inter alia, that the plaintiff No. 1 is a registered partnership firm, while the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 are its partners. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 3 supplied certain goods to the plaintiff, pursuant to the order of the plaintiff, and the said goods were sent to the plaintiff by being booked with the Railway Administration vide Railway Receipt No. 14833 Invoice No. 15 dt. 24/16.1.1981, from Mithapur to Bikaner, freight amounting to Rs. 2627/- was to be paid by the consignee. The goods were to be delivered by the Railway Admini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(2)WLN100
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sriganganagar dated 31-3-1986 whereby the learned Magistrate registered the case against the petitioner under Section 600, IPC.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are: that one Smt. Manju Pande, Advocate of Sri Ganganagar filed a complaint against the petitioner as also one Shri Hardevsingh Sandhu, Advocate of Jodhpur under Sections 200, 209, 211 and 500 IPC pleading inter alia, that the petitioner Makhansingh and Shri Hardevsingh Sandhu filed a transfer application for transfer of a sessions case from the court of the then Sessions Judge, K.S. Verma, It has been alleged by Smt. Pande that her husband is a Senior Lecturer in English and her father is the Superintendent Engineer (Irrigation) at Sri Ganganagar. She has been standing counsel of the Government Press and the Municipal Board, Sri Ganganagar. She is a member of the Central...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2004]137TAXMAN249(Raj)
R. Balla, J. Appeal is heard on merit, as requested by both the learned counsel.2. The substantial questions of law which have been raised by the revenue in this case read as under :-' 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in allowing the expenditure of Rs. 2,16,000 incurred for construction of Manikyalal Verma Rajkiya Textile Institute as revenue expenditure, following its earlier order in ITA Nos. 741, 742 and 615/Jp/1992 in assessee's case for assessment year 1987-88 ignoring the fact that --i. admittedly the expenditure is on construction of building and sections 30 to 36 read with section 37 do not provide for deduction of expenditure of capital nature.ii. transfer of a capital assets cannot be construed to mean that capital nature into revenue and the reference to accrual of a benefit of enduring nature is quite irrelevant and in fact superfluous.iii. the provisions of section 37(1) expressly excludes the allowability of capital e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010 & 11 other connected writ petitions ( See Schedule) Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors. Judgment dt: 11/10/20111/53IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Jodhpur Development Authority, vs. Jodhpur State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010 & 11 other connected writ petitions ( See Schedule) DATE OF : PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. M.C.Bhoot, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Surendra Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: 1. The petitioner, Jodhpur Development Authority, through its 11th October, 2011Commissioner, has approached this Court by way of present batch of writ petitions, inter alia, claiming the quashing of judgment and order dated 26/10/2009 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jodhpur on a complaint filed under Section 12 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ1075Raj; 1996(2)WLC396
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order terminating his service and the Validity of condition No. 16 contained in the appointment letter dated, October 15, 1984, which is stated by the respondent company (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Management') to be the contract of employment.The vital question for consideration in this petition, therefore, is --Whether condition No. 16 of the letter of appointment dated, October 15, 1984, empowering the management to terminate services of an employee without assigning any reason by mere giving one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice, is arbitrary, unreasonable and constitutionally invalid?2. The necessary facts of the case for decision of the writ petition are in a narrow compass. The petitioner joined service of the respondent M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. as Clerk in the year 1963, since then, except for a short break of few days, he contin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)366
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an application-in-revision filed by Manji through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur, against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Banswara, dated 27th July, 1977, by which his conviction and sentence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred-to as the Act, were upheld and maintained. It will not be out of place to mention that Manji was tried for the offence of selling adulterated milk of she buffalo and found guilty thereof by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Banswara who, on his conviction, sentenced him to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The prosecution care against Manji petitioner was as follows : On 15th February, 1974, Gauri Shanker, Food Inspector, Banswara, inspected the milk of the petitioner at about 7p.m. on Mala Road in front of the hotel of Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN567
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated 8th November, 1984, in Appeal No. 74 of 1979 whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 22nd December, 1976 the petitioner was taking two drums of milk. He was intercepted and checked by Shri Gopal Lal Saini, Food Inspector and 660 grams of she goat milk was taken by him as sample. It was divided into three equal parts and was packed in three fials, one fial was given to the petitioner. Sanction for the prosecution was also obtained. Public Analyst found the milk adulterated. Report of the Public Analyst is Ex. P 6. Public Analyst reported that the sample is adulterated by reason of abstraction of about 13% of its original fat. This report is dated 29th Januar...
Tag this Judgment!