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 : 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 : (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 : 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 : 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!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 : [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(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)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)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!