Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj2056; 2005(2)WLC10
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for eviction of his tenant-respondent, from the suit premises, vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.1994. The appellate court reversed the judgment and the decree of the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.1997. Hence, this second appeal by the appellant-plaintiff-landlord against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 5.4.1997.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant, who was in service in the year 1974, let out one of his shop, out of his three shops, situated in his house to the defendant- deceased Kanhaiya Lal on 2.10.1974 on rent of Rs. 110/- per month excluding the charges for the electricity, water and house-tax. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against the defendant-tenant on 28.10.1977. The plaintiff in his plaint stated that the suit shop was let out to the defendant for commercial purposes but instead of doing the business in his own name,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005(103)ECC152; 2005(186)ELT3(Raj)
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Amongst others, the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of tyres for which it has its manufacturing facility at Kankroli, Rajasthan. For the purposes of its manufacturing in Rajasthan of such tyres, the petitioner imports Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric (NTCF) from various manufacturers/exporters of other countries including from those situated in Peoples Republic of China. The NTCF so imported is comprised of three different varieties namely, the grey fabric, dipped fabric and Cycle Tyre Cord Fabric (CTC). The petitioner is also a member of Automotive Tyre Manufacturer Association (ATMA). The association represents the collective interest of tyre manufacturers.2. The Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry (ASFI), whose members are the manufacturers of synthetic fibre in India, including NTCF, submitted a written application before the Designated Author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1385; 2005(4)WLC163
N.N. Mathur, J.1. A sordid and obnoxious incident of rape on a foreign lady tourist In the intervening night of 11th and 12th May, 2005 reported In the regional Newspapers evoked the judicial conscience to take suo moto cognizance, considering that the Constitutional Courts vested with the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can no more be a silent spectator in the matter of violent crime against women and wait for its turn for dispensation of justice as provided under the relevant provisions of law.2. In order to combat the increasing crime against women and to ensure protection and preservation of their human rights, - the Criminal Justice System needs to be addressed from the point of view of systematic Victim Support Service. There is need to promote proactive role of police as well as the trial Courts. Thus, In order to expedite the investigation, to provide protection to the victim, ensuring production of material witnesses during trial without delay, expeditio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2477; 2006(1)WLC563
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. For the rape and murder of a helpless woman Rekha, appellants have been sentenced to death. Learned trial Judge has referred papers of this case for confirmation of death sentence whereas the appellants have challenged order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by filing appeals. Substantial questions of general importance and somewhat ticklish, involved in the case are whether Rajesh, presented as an approver by the prosecution around whose testimony almost entire case of prosecution rests, qualify as an approver in view of his statements made under Sections 164, 306, Cr. P.C. and his testimony before the Court where he completely exculpates himself and inculpates only appellants and whether from narration of facts given by him, he rather appears to be a protestor, preventor and to some extent, even a victim of the crime himself. The other question of equal significance that confronts the Court is that if testimony of Rajesh is discarded as approver whet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1700
S.N. Jha, C.J. 1. The dispute in this group of writ petitions being the same they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. It may be stated at the out set that the petitions were allowed earlier on 25.11.2004 vide judgment reported in 2005(1) RLR 474. On application of the State, however, vide order dated 1.6.2005 the judgment was recalled in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 449/2005 (def) and analogous, and the petitions were restored for hearing on merits. That is how the petitions came up for hearing.3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5504/2004 was argued as the representative case and facts of the case, therefore, have been noticed from the record of that case.4. The dispute relates to appointment of B.Ed. Teachers on the post of Teacher Grade HI in upper primary schools in the State of Rajasthan.5. Before stating the case of the petitioners it would be appropriate to briefly notice the scheme of recruitment of teachers in primary schools in the State of Rajasthan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2007)209CTR(Raj)143; [2007]288ITR116(Raj)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated December 17, 1999, in two cross-appeals arising out of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1989-90. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admitting the appeal reads as under:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has correctly construed the provisions of Section 80HHC, in the matter of computing profits and gains of their business, in the context of the said provision for granting deduction2. One of the assessee's business in which the assessee is engaged in the business of export out of India of goods and merchandise to which Section 80HHC applies.3. In the first instance, on October 31, 1989, the assessee had submitted a return of income declaring loss computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act at Rs. 62,63,970. The assessee filed a revised return for treating the cash compensatory support received during the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1642; 2006(3)WLC1
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioners- Institution seeks to challenge the order dated 1.8.1994 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal) in case No. 127/94 whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioners-Institution to fill the vacant post of Library LDC by promoting respondent No. 3 Beni Prasad Saini, who is class-IV employee.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Tribunal for seeking direction for filling the post of Library LDC by promoting him and further the advertisement issued for filling the same be quashed. It has also been prayed that in case during pendency of the appeal, the post is filled in pursuance to the said advertisement, then the same be declared illegal and contrary to law. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 3 has submitted that he is class-IV employee in Agrawal College since 25 years having qual...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2007]136CompCas790(Raj); [2007]75SCL270(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This petition under Sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, (in short 'Act of 1956') seeking approval of the scheme of amalgamation between Skipper Electricals (India) Limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'Transferor company' (Company No. 1), with SEIL Powergears Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Transferee Company (Company No. 2)'].2. The transferor company was incorporated on 23-5-1989 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 as a private limited company and converted into a public limited company vide special resolution dated 28-6-1994. Fresh certificate of incorporation dated 21-10-1994 was issued by Assistant Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. The authorised share capital of the transferor company is Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs) divided into 10,000 (ten thousand) equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the transferor company is Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakhs) divide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
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
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3614; RLW2008(2)Raj1084
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This revision petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 21-4-2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Sirohi in Sessions case No. 112/2000 whereby, while discharging the accused non-petitioners from offence under Section 413, IPC the trial Court framed charge for offences under Sections 457, 380, 411 and 120B, IPC against the accused non-petitioners. The State has preferred this revision petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 21 4-2005 to the extent the trial Court has discharged the non-petitioners from the offence under Section 413, IPC.2. It is submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the petitioner-State, that on 20-10-2002, complainant Purushottam Das submitted a written report to the S.H.O., Police Station Mandar that he had been performing worship in Warmeshwar Mahadev temple. On 20-10-2002, at about 7 a.m., he came to the temple and saw that the door of the temple was displaced an...
Tag this Judgment!