Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN398
Jagat Narain, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan (defendant No. 2) against a decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 25-9-58 decreeing a suit instituted against it and against the Union of India (defendant No. 1) by the Associated Stone Industries Kota (hereinafter referred to as the Company).2. The relevant facts are that the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Kota entered into an agreement Ex. A on 2-5- 45 with the Company for quarrying Kachcha stone from the Tehsils of Ramganj Mandi and Chochat. Monopoly rights for quarrying Kachcha stone in these two tehsils were granted to the Company for a period of 15 years from 1-10- 44. The terms and conditions contained in Clause 18(1) of the agreement ran as under:In consideration of the concessions and privileges granted by the Grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super tax and excess profits tax, the Grantee convenant to pay to the Grantor royalty on the stone excavated at the rate of rupee one per 100 sq. ft., subjected to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj128
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan (defendant No. 2) against a decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 25-9-58 decreeing a suit instituted against it and against the Union of India (defendant No. 1) by the Associated Stone Industries Kota (hereinafter referred to as the Company). 2. The relevant facts are that the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Kota entered into an agreement Ex. A on 2-5-45 with the Company for quarrying Kachcha stone from the Tehsils of Ramganj Mandi and Chechat. Monopoly rights for quarrying Kachcha stone in these two tehsils were granted to the Company for a period of 15 years from 1-10-44- The terms and conditions contained in Clause 18 (i) of the agreement ran as under :-- 'In consideration of the concessions and privileges granted by the Grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super-tax and excess profits tax, the Grantee covenant to pay to the Grantor royalty on the stone excavated at the rate of rupee one per 100 sq. ft., subject t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj6
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment and decree of Bhandari J, sitting single, confirming in second appeal the decision of the District Judge, Jaipur. Leave to appeal has been granted by the learned Judge.2. The appeal relates to a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, The Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd., for recovery of Rs. 3539/7/- from the defendant Municipal Committee, which is the appellant here. The plaintiff alleged that the Municipal Committee Madanganj had borrowed on 9-7-1947 a sum of Rs, 3,000/- and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, after the loan had been duly sanctioned by the Mahkama Khas of the then Kishangarh State. Later the Municipal Committee Madanganj merged in the Municipal Committee Kishangarh and plaintiff averred that, by virtue of the merger, the defendant became liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest.The defendant resisted the claim and its liability to pay the amount; but admitted that in any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj128; I(2006)DMC667; RLW2006(1)Raj612; 2006(1)WLC648
V.K. Bali, J. 1. Sudarshan Bhatia, born and brought up in the State of Rajas-than, but stated to be a Canadian citizen, died on 21.4.1989 in Germany leaving behind considerable movable and immovable properties. Poonam Bhati his wife and Smita Bhatia, minor daughters, said to have been born out of the wedlock of Sudarshan Bhatia and Poonam Bhatia, successfully sought succession certificate with regard to the movable properties of deceased Sudarshan Bhatia, details whereof have been given in the application under Section 372 of the Indian succession Act itself as the same was allowed vide orders dated 6.12.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Whereas Surendra Bhatia brother of Sudarshan Bhatia resisted grant of succession certificate to Poonam Bhati and her daughter Smita on the basis of Will dated 17.4.1989 (Ex.A.l) said to have been executed by Sudarshan Bhati, his sister resisted the same on the ground that movable properties owned by Sudarshan Bhatia were made from...
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 : RLW2009(1)Raj140
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dtd. 26.5.2008 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the defendant filed under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the C.P.C. seeking to produce on record certain additional documents in an eviction matter.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for seeking eviction of the suit shop in question on the ground of personal and bonafide necessary of the landlord. After the evidence of the plaintiff-defendant was complete on 17.11.2006 and the case was fixed for final arguments on 8.12.2006 after taking several opportunities for arguing the case, the defendant filed the aforesaid application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the C.P.C. and the said defendant wanted to produce the documents viz. application for registration under the Sales Tax Law by one M/s. Arihant Metals, proprietorship concern of father of the plaintiff, which was purportedly signed as Manager by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1967Raj221
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. The Special Judge No. 2, Jaipur rejected the claim of the four applicants before me, who are commissioned officers of the Indian Army to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prescribes trial by Court Martial by his order dated 10th October, 1966, and it is against this order that they have come up in revision.2. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision application briefly stated are :A charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge on 27th January, 1966 against 8 persons accusing them of offences of criminal conspiracy, bribery, criminal breach of trust, cheating and falsification of accounts under the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. One of them K.S. Oberei turned an approver. Out of the remaining 7 accused three are civilians and four are officers of the Indian Army w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2010Raj86,RLW2010(2)Raj1418
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. The controversy involved in these writ petitions is identical, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The inspection report dated 20.7.09, provisional assessment order dated 31.7.09 issued by the Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited ('AWNL'), Kankroli directing the petitioners to deposit the electricity charges assessed under provisional assessment order without passing final assessment orders in terms of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act'), are impugned in each of these writ petitions.3. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the electric connections were released by the AWNL to the petitioners industrial establishments. On 20.7.09, a vigilance checking was made by the respondent No. 2 at the premises of the petitioners industrial establishments and the checking reports were prepared. As per the checking reports, the petitioners were found indulged in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9027/2011 AND 8985/2011 BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN Judgment dt:11/10/20111/24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. .. 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9027/2011 (BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8985/2011 (BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Judgment : 11th October, 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the petitioner. --------1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. These two writ petitions have been filed by the the impugnedpetitioner Binani Cement Limited challengingrectification order and consequential demand notices issued against it for assessment year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 in which demand of approximately Rs.64.30 lacs has been raised against the said company manufacturing cement, as a consequence of amendment brought in Section 8 of the CST Act, 1956 including section 8(5) of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(2001)DMC17; 2001(4)WLC684; 2001(4)WLN642
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant criminal miscellaneous petition involves manifold legal questions that run as follows :(i) Whether after rejection of anticipatory bail application by the High Court, is the accused entitled to make second bail application before the Sessions Court under Section 438, Cr.P.C ?(ii) Whether a Sessions Judge is competent to grant second bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. ignoring the earlier rejection order the High Court ?(iii) Has the complainant locus standi to make application under Sub-section (2) of Section 439, Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused ?(iv) Could the application made before the High Court under Sub-section (2) of Section 439, Cr.P.C, be remitted back to the Sessions Court for a fresh decision ?(v) What are the principles of judicial discipline and propriety ?2. Contextual facts depict that informant Fateh Singh instituted FIR on March 26, 1997 with the Police Station Mahuwa in regard to death of his sister V...
Tag this Judgment!