Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(4)Raj3110
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.6.2005 passed by the District Collector, Jaipur, the aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed by petitioner Ranjeet Singh questioning non-renewal of his arms licence. In the first Writ Petition No. 3513/2004, challenge has been made to the letter dated 22.4.2004 by which the authorised arms dealer, M/s Jindal and Company, Panch Batti, M.I. Road, Jaipur, with whom the petitioner had deposited his licensed arm viz. one 12 Bore DBBL Gun No. 75623 and 32 Bore Revolver No. B-1872 at the time of election, was directed not to return these weapons to the petitioner without prior permission of the Police Station, Mahesh Nagar. Under challenge in the second Writ Petition No.5635/2005 however is the order of the District Collector dated 24.6 2005 whereby he cancelled the licence of the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid two weapons and ordered their forfeiture. Since in both the writ petitions, dispute pertains to the same per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2007)210CTR(Raj)553; RLW2007(4)Raj3133
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. These two special appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dt. 14th Sept., 1994 [reported as Krishna Kumar Rawat and Ors. v. Appropriate Authority and Ors. (1995) 123 CTR (Raj) 61] in the writ petition filed by the appellant Krishna Kumar Rawat and three others in which appellant Smt. Mithilesh Kumari was a respondent. Factual matrix of the case is that petitioners Krishna Kumar Rawat, Ashok Kumar Rawat, Ravindra Kumar Rawat and Rajindra Kumar Rawat were intending buyers of a property located at khasra No. 126 of Village Durgapura in Tehsil Sanganer of District Jaipur, which now forms part of Jaipur city. This property consists of a plot area admeasuring 9,500 sq. yds/7,945 sq. mtrs. with two godowns and certain other structures. The appellant Mithilesh Kumari (for short-the vendor), the owner of the property, entered into an agreement to sale dt. 18th Dec. 1993 for sale of the aforesaid property in favour of the prospective buyers for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2008Raj28
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner which is a registered company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 is challenging the order dated 27-7-1999 passed by the Additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur by which it was required to deposit stamp duty for registration of its amended Memorandum of Association @ 0.5% ad valorem on the enhanced share capital amount.2. The petitioner-company was incorporated in the name and style of National Bearing Company (Jaipur) Ltd. under the Jaipur Companies Act, 1942 at Jaipur on 13-1-1948 with its registered Office at Jaipur. Clause 5 of its Memorandum of Association prior to the amendment dated 16-10-1998 contained thus:5. The capital of the Company is Rs. 5,75,00,000 (Rupees Five Crores Seventy five lacs) divided into 55,00,000 shares of Rs. 10 each and 25000 shares of Rs. 100 each with power to sub-divide, consolidate and increase or decrease and with power from time to time to issue any share of the original capital or any new capital with the subj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)16VST387(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of 'sada pan masala', mixed with tobacco in the brand name of Geetanjali, Zafri 2100 Gutkha, etc. The petitioner as a manufacturer is subject to excise duty and is also liable to sales tax under the State sales tax or Central sales tax, as the case may be, in respect of the transactions of sale entered by it.2. Vide impugned notification dated January 3, 2001 'zarda mixed pan masala including gutkha and churi' was added to the list of commodities on which the levy of tax under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 was extended. The petitioner is aggrieved with the levy of tax under the Act of 1999 on its product when its brand is carried into local area of State of Rajasthan for use, consumption or sale within such local area. He has challenged the constitutional validity of the Act of 1999 and the aforesaid notification issued thereunder.3. Amongst other grounds, the petitioner has challenged the levy being u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj716
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, No. 7, Jaipur City dated 22.12.1980. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant Prem Chand son of Shri Gulab Chand, the judgment-debtor, now represented through his legal representatives.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that the decree-holder-plaintiff Khajulal, now represented through his legal representatives Shri Motichand and others filed a suit for partition and possession of the half portion of a residential house known as 'Haveli' situated at Chokadi Ramchandraji in Jaipur. The said Haveli was a joint Hindu Undivided Family property of Gulab Chand and one Maliram having half share each. In a decree passed in favour of one Ganga Pratap against defendant Gulab Chand in execution case No. 654/42, the said half share of Gulab Chand of the Haveli was attached and auctioned, which was purchased by plaintiff Khajul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(2)Raj1197
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 11/5/2007 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur thereby rejecting her application filed on 26/4/2007. This application was filed by the petitioner in the pending proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred in short as the 'Act') which in fact was jointly filed on 20/2/1998 by the petitioner, Rajkumari Lalitya and Rajkumar Dev Raj, respondents No.2 and 3, respectively for issuance of Succession Certificate with regard to properties of late 'Maharaj' Jagat Singh who died on 5/2/1997. When notices of the petition under Section 372 of the Act were issued, other legal representatives of late 'Maharaj' Jagat Singh namely; Maharaj Prithvi Singh and 'Maharaj' Jai Singh admitted to the claim of the aforementioned three applicants to inherit estates of late 'Maharaj' Jagat Singh in equal proportion. Yet another brother 'Maharaj' Bhawani Singh objecte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2757
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios, S.A. (in short 'the petitioner- company') is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the petitioner-company possesses the qualifying requirements and technical criteria laid down in Clause 3.00 of Part III of Specification under the caption 'special conditions of contract' and further to allow the petitioner-company to participate in the price bid, with a further direction to restrain the respondent from assigning any contract for 400 KV GSS at Bhilwara or Bikaner (TN 223 and TN 220) to any participant in the price bid for the said contract.Pleadings of The Parties2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner-company in the writ petition and the rejoinder, are that the petitioner-company company is a multi-national company with its headquarters at Madrid (Spain) having annual turn over of Rs. 9,000 Crores and has executed comparable p...
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 : RLW2009(1)Raj46
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Limited, a Government of Rajasthan Enterprises, RSMM, for short, against the Railway Administration challenging the vires of Railways (Punitive Charges for Over-riding of Wagons) Rules, 2004 framed under the provisions of Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989 and framed in supersession of earlier Rules of 1990 prevailing in this regard.2. The petitioner had initially laid a challenge to the provisions of Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989 also, but that challenge was given up before the Division Bench of this Court on 26.9.1997 and challenge was restricted to the validity of aforesaid Rules of 2004 and thus, the matter was remanded to the Single Judge. However, prior to that, on 6.12.2006, the Division Bench had passed the following Interim order in the matter:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh BaliaHon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan VyasMr. M.R. Singhvi, for the appellant.Mr. Kamal Dave, Mr. J.P. J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj62
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, working on the post of Assistant (C) with the respondent National Insurance Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent Company'] and having been transferred from Divisional Office, Jodhpur to Branch Office, Balotara, has challenged the transfer order dated 18.08.2006 (Annex.7) as being violative of statutory requirements.2. Put in a nut-shell, the contentions of the petitioner are that a part of Transfer Policy as framed, and the consequential Administrative Instructions as issued by the respondent Company are not in conformity with the statutory Scheme related with such transfers; and that his transfer order has been issued by an officer who could not have been and has not been authorised to do so; and further that the transfer order has been issued even contrary to the terms of the Transfer Policy.3. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he was appointed by the respondent Compan...
Tag this Judgment!