Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1430; (2009)12VatReporter17
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These revision petitions have been filed by the Revenue under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) being aggrieved by the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 18/6/2067, whereby, the Tax Board decided a batch of sue appeals filed by the Assessee and another batch of six appeals filed by the Revenue. These cross appeals arose out of the order of first appellate authority - Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur dated 22/7/2006, whereby, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the levy of tax upon the assessee, whereas, set aside the levy of interest and penalty imposed by the assessing authority under Section 65 of the Act. So far as levy of tax was upheld, the assessee was aggrieved and, therefore, it preferred six appeals for six different assessment years namely A.Y.2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. As far as levy of interest and penalty is concerned, since first appellat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ225Raj; RLW2009(3)Raj2029; 2009(3)WLN571
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Petitioner Gopal Prasad Varshney was appointed on the post of Clerk in the respondent Bank on 23.01.1965 after giving age relaxation of two and half years in view of his additional qualification and retired from the post of Senior Manager on attaining age of superannuation on 31.07.1995. The pension scheme was introduced in the Banking Industry in November, 1993. The respondent Bank also framed its own employees pension regulation in 1993. The total service of the petitioner with the respondent Bank was 31 years, whereas for 100% pension 33 years service is required and for short of 2 years service, the petitioner wanted to take the benefit of Rule 26(c) of The Bank of Rajasthan Limited (Employees') Pension Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') as prior to the service with the respondent Bank, the petitioner had served in the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation for the period from 01.08.1959 to 09.01.1965. To this effect, the petitioner submitted his repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj39; 2009(3)WLN113
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The application seeking immediate order for ejectment of the tenants from the demised premises (Case No. 1/1997: Old No. 10/1996) as made by the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the applicant' / 'the landlord') on 10.06.1996 with reference to the provisions of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' / 'the Act of 1950') came to be allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Banswara on 13.05.1997 making an order for ejectment of the tenants from the suit premises. The order so passed on 13.05.1997 was challenged by the tenants under Section 16(11) of the Act of 1950 in Civil Revision Petition No. 1/2005 that came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Banswara by the impugned order dated 15.12.2005. Aggrieved, the tenants in the first place preferred a regular first appeal (CFA No. 77/2006) that was dismissed by this Court on 12.05.2006 as being incompetent....
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 Jaipur
1. Instant petition has been filed by M/s BD & P Hotels (India) (P) Ltd who was in possession of Hotel Mukandgarh Resorts since 04/08/2009 on having purchased lease hold rights through respondent-6 (secured creditor) under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), but has been dispossessed on 09/03/2010 pursuant to warrant of possession issued by the Executing Court, Jhunjhunu on 05/03/2010 in Execution Appl.No.35/2009) at the behest of decree holder in execution of Arbitral Award dt. 15/02/2009 passed for recovery of possession and arrears along with interest against its lessee (respondent-5), possession whereof was taken over by secured creditor (TFCI-respondent-6) with whom lease hold rights were mortgaged creating security interest by respondent-5 with the consent of lessor (respondent-2 to 4) on 22/08/2008. Question arising for consideration in instant case is as to whether petitioner in whose favour lease hold...
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 Jodhpur
SBCWP No.6757/2013 Panne Singh & Ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors. Along with 13 other connected matters Judgment dt:3/3/2014 1/71 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Panne Singh & Ors. Vs. RSRTC & Ors S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6757/2013 along with 13 other connected matters (See Schedule) DATE OF JUDGMENT :3. d March, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Dr. Nupur Bhati, ]. Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit, ]. Mr.Lokesh Mathur, ]. Mr. S.K.Verma, ]. Mr. Vipin Mankad, ]. for the petitioners. Mr. M.S.Rathore ]. Mr. Inderjeet Yadav, ]. Mr. P.R.Singh, Addl. Advocate General for RSRTC. REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:1. This bunch of cases has come up before this Court on account of termination of services of the petitioners, who were appointed as Conductors in the respondent RSRTC, a Corporation incorporated under the provisions of The Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The facts illustratively are taken from SBCWP No.6757/2013 Panne Singh & ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors.2. In the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SBCWP No.6757/2013 Panne Singh & Ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors. Along with 13 other connected matters Judgment dt:3/3/2014 1/71 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Panne Singh & Ors. Vs. RSRTC & Ors S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6757/2013 along with 13 other connected matters (See Schedule) DATE OF JUDGMENT :3. d March, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Dr. Nupur Bhati, ]. Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit, ]. Mr.Lokesh Mathur, ]. Mr. S.K.Verma, ]. Mr. Vipin Mankad, ]. for the petitioners. Mr. M.S.Rathore ]. Mr. Inderjeet Yadav, ]. Mr. P.R.Singh, Addl. Advocate General for RSRTC. REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:1. This bunch of cases has come up before this Court on account of termination of services of the petitioners, who were appointed as Conductors in the respondent RSRTC, a Corporation incorporated under the provisions of The Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The facts illustratively are taken from SBCWP No.6757/2013 Panne Singh & ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors.2. In the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SBCWP No.6757/2013 Panne Singh & Ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors. Along with 13 other connected matters Judgment dt:3/3/2014 1/71 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Panne Singh & Ors. Vs. RSRTC & Ors S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6757/2013 along with 13 other connected matters (See Schedule) DATE OF JUDGMENT :3. d March, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Dr. Nupur Bhati, ]. Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit, ]. Mr.Lokesh Mathur, ]. Mr. S.K.Verma, ]. Mr. Vipin Mankad, ]. for the petitioners. Mr. M.S.Rathore ]. Mr. Inderjeet Yadav, ]. Mr. P.R.Singh, Addl. Advocate General for RSRTC. REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:1. This bunch of cases has come up before this Court on account of termination of services of the petitioners, who were appointed as Conductors in the respondent RSRTC, a Corporation incorporated under the provisions of The Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The facts illustratively are taken from SBCWP No.6757/2013 Panne Singh & ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors.2. In the se...
Tag this Judgment!