Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN427
J.P. Jain, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant State against whom the respondent's suit No. 37/61 for the recovery of Rs. 2016.24 as arrears of salary for the period from 1.6.52 to 18.3.54 was decreed by the Civil Judge. Ajmer and the same was maintained in appeal by the District Judge, Ajmer on 31,3.1965.2. Respondent Sunder Das was joined service in the Agriculture Dept. of the erstwhile State of Ajmer on 10 5.1948. His appointment was temporary. His services were terminated after one month's notice to him with effect from the afternoon of 30.4.1952. The order terminating his service is Ex. A-3 on record. Sunderdas appeared to have represented the matter and he was re-employed on the same post with effect from 19 5.1954. This order has not been placed on record by either party. In the meanwhile, State of Ajmer merged into Rajasthan. By the order dated 24th February, (sic)the Government of Rajasthan in the Agriculture Department passed an order condoning the break of service...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)457
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Pratapgarh dated January 30, 1976 affirming the preliminary decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Pratapgarh dated May 1, 1971 whereby the latter had decreed Civil Suit No. 64 of 1966 instituted by the plaintiffs for possession of their portion in a 'haveli' and shop situated in Sadar Bazar, Mochi Para, Chhittorgarh after taking accounts of the income derived by the appellants from the share of the plaintiffs' property.2. Facts leading to the filling of this second appeal are that on April 4, 1966, the plaintiffs-respondents instituted Civil Suit No 64 of 1966 against Chhaganlal and his son Niranjan Lal Chhaganlal died during the pendency of the suit. His son Niranjan Lal was already on record and his widow Smt. Alil Bai was also substituted as his legal representative. The plaintiffs-respondents alleged in the plaint that the parties alongwith Udailal and Bhanwar La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)217CTR(Raj)497
N.P. Gupta, J.1. These 11 appeals arise in almost identical circumstances, rather except Appeal No. 119, all ten appeals arise in exactly identical circumstances.2. Appeal Nos. 94, 99, 100, 101, 131 of 2005, and Appeal No. 1/2006 arise out of the common order of the learned ITAT dt. 10.8.2004, allowing the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1991- 92, setting aside the impugned orders of the Assessing Officer, and the Commissioner, and directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income from the house property, on the basis of the actual rent receipt, obviously to compute it in the year it was received.3. Then, Appeal Nos. 26, 84, 85 of 2006 and 45/2007 arise out of the common judgment of the learned ITAT dt. 5.5.2005, for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-97 partly allowing the appeals, and holding, that the receipt of arrears of rent, and enhanced rent, are taxable only in the relevant period when it is received, and thus setting aside ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1980WLN295
M.L. Shrimal, J.1.This special appeal taken under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the judgment dated May 2, 1977, of learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1739 of 1973.2. The petitioner's case before learned Single Judge was that there used to be a village known as Bhojpura, Tehsil Jaipur. Its entire land forms part of Jaipur City. This village had been granted in 'Bhog' by the former State of Jaipur to seven temples. Before the formation of the United State of Rajasthan the erstwhile State of Jaipur had acquired from time to time the following chunks of land forming part of village Bhojpura:(a) For Race Course-119 Bighas, in 1938 A.D.,(b) For Ram Bagh Palace, 99 Bighas 4 Biswas, In 1936 A.D.,(c) For Man Guard Barracks, 28 Bighas (now known as Secretariat building),(d) For the Palace to Shri Maharaj Kumar Singhji 144 Bighas 4 Biswas in 1944 A.D.(e) For Improvement Scheme, 19 Bighas 10 Biswas, in 1944 A.D.Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN585
R.D. Gattani, J.1. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.T.A.') on 24.4.1970 fixed the scope of two stage carriages with one return trip on Banswara Ratanpur via Garhi, Sagwara, Dungarpur, Kherwada and Bichiwada route (hereinafter referred to as 'the' disputed route') Before that on 9.1.1968 the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (petitioner in writ petition No. 2260 of 1970 and hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') had published a scheme under Section 68 C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the following four routes:(1) Udaipur- Dungarpur via Rikhabdeo, Kherwada, (2) Udaipur-Ratanpur via Rikhabdeo, Kherwada, Bichiwara, (3) Udaipur Rikhabdeo, (4) Dungarpur-Ratanpur via Kumba, Thana, Bichipura. A few persons had already applied for the grant of non temporary permits on 'the disputed route'. These applications after getting them published as required under the law, c...
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 Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 SHREE CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN DTD. 11.10.20111/105IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 Shree Cement Ltd. V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Judgment : 11th October 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr.S.Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bapna, Advocate General and Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Mathur, Lokesh Mathur, Mr.Sunil Beniwal, for the respondents. BY THE COURT -1. How negative executive interventions, lack of political will and wisdom can cause laggard, sluggish and distorted industrial growth in a State, though rich in minerals, lime stone in present case in the State of Rajasthan and sufferer is a cement manufacturing unit, will be borne out from what follows in this case. 2. Another caveat on legislative practices, particularly subordinate legislation and executive policy decisions and the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Raj)417; [2010]186TAXMAN365(Raj)
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Since bunch of cross-petitions filed by Assessees as well as by Revenue assailing orders of Settlement Commission in cases of different assessees, involve self-same issue for consideration; hence at request, were finally heard together for its disposal by this common order at admission stage. Primary question for consideration in a bunch of writ petitions preferred by Revenue and cross petitions by different assessees is with regard to applications filed before settlement commission on or before 01/06/2007 and assailing orders of Settlement Commission, on the premise that if impugned order of Settlement commission Under Section 245D(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) is held to be legally unsustainable, in such an eventuality, whether matters are to be remitted back to settlement commission to examine afresh in accordance with law or to the assessing authority in view of proceedings initiated under Chapter-XIX-A on being held to be abated in terms of Section 245HA of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN863
K.D. Sharma, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of a single judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu on 7th June, 1972 upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Jhunjhunu, dated 19th May, 1970 in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. As there are common questions of law and fact involved in these two applications in revision, they are disposed of by one judgment.2. The relevant facts giving rife to these revision petitions may be shortly slated as follows. The Station House Office', Police Station, Ghidawa initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr P.C. against the parties in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu on 12th August, 1968. It was alleged by the police that there is an agricultural land measuring 24 bighas and 2 biswas under a well popularly known as 'Swamiwala Will' situated in khasra No. 529 at village Ojatu Out of this land one half, i.e. 12 bighas and 1 Biswa belong to Nathudas and his daughter Kamali and her husba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN191
ORDER AGAINST TN 3010 FOR SUPPLY OF ACSR PANTHER CONDUCTOR (.) DEPUTE YOUR FULLY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISCUSSION ON DECEMBER 29, 1982.3. It was followed by another telegram, dated January 3, 1983, thereafter another telegram on January 17, 1983, fixing January 24, 1983, but instead of sending a representative, the petitioner's case is that respondent sent a notice, dated February 22, 1983, through their counsel re-pudiating the contract calling upon to refer all disputes and differences to arbitrators and further informed about nominating Shri S. Rangarajan, Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court, as their arbitrator and requested to nominate the arbitrator by the Board. On March 8, 1983, the petitioner wrote to respondent No. 1 inter alia stating that the delivery schedule for supply needs revision and re-fixation by mutual negotiations and that the reference to arbitration and appointment of Shri S. Rangarajan is premature. It was further mentioned that if the petitioners were not agre...
Tag this Judgment!