Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1987Raj186; 1987(2)WLN643
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. In the above numbered six writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the vires of the Rajasthan Land Tax Act, 1985 (for short, the State Act). The State Act was passed by the Rajasthan State Legislature in 1985 and received the assent of the Governor on July 31, 1985. According to its preamble it is law which has been enacted to provide for imposition of tax on land in areas other than urban areas in the State of Rajasthan and the matters incidental thereto. Under Section 3 of the State Act the tax is imposed on the annual value of the land. Annual valuehas been defined in Section 2(a) of the State Act. So far as the annual value in the case of land which are governed by the mining leases is concerned, it is given in Section 2(a)(i) of that Act. The petitioners, have challenged the vires of the Act inter alia on the ground that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Legislature and covered under entry No. 54 of the Union List-I of the VIIth Schedule t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1987Raj83; 1987(1)WLN272
Dave, J.1. This larger Bench has been constituted by the orders of the Chief Justice, dt. July 3, 1986, to answer a question referred to larger Bench by our brother Hon'ble G. K. Sharma, J. vide his order of reference, dated May 28, 1986 wherein he has framed the following question :'Whether the judgment given in absence of the appellant or his counsel but the case decided on merits, can be re-called by the Court in its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.'2. The petitioner, Habu, had filed a revision petition in this Court in the year 1978 challenging his conviction and sentence. This revision-petition was admitted on Oct. 25, 1978, and was ordered to be heard in due course on May 26, 1979. Thereafter it came up for hearing on Jan. 11, 1985 before Hon'ble Sharma, J. The accused petitioner who was on bail neither appeared in person npr his counsel was present and Hon'ble Sharma, J. after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor dismissed the revision-petition on merits. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(12)ECC124; 1987(11)LC717(Rajasthan); 1987(32)ELT363(Raj); 1987WLN(UC)63
S.S. Byas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner Challenges the legality of the order Annexure 6, dated October 11, 1977, by which the petitioner was advised to take out a licence and pay duty on dross and skimmings.2. Briefly recounted, the relevant facts are that the petitioner is a private limited company dealing in the manufacture of the aluminium rods out of aluminium ingots. In the manufacturing process undertaken by the petitioner for the purpose of extracting pure aluminium and separating impurity, ingots are put into furnace. While pure aluminium stands extracted by this process, the impurities are thrown out. This impurity is known as dross and skimmings. The contention of the petitioner is that no Excise duty is leviable on this dross and skimmings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act' hereinafter). However, on June 18, 1977, Item No. 68 came to be inserted in the First Schedule, which provided that duty shall be levied at 10% ad valorem on all other g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN565
Farooq Hassan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial court on an application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, for seeking amendment in his written statement, which was rejected by the trial court on May 2, 1986.2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of rent and ejectment from the rented shop on the ground of personal necessity. It is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant that the landlord-plaintiff was having one shop in Krishi Grain Mandi, Kotputli duly allotted to him and the non-petitioner-plaintiff has already started carrying on his business in it, and that, the [plaintiff-land lord was also having shop in Katla, Kotputli in his possession which is lying vacant. As such, the petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17, seeking amendment in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN552
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. The case of the petitioners is that in village Sinota, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota, one Shri Chhittar Lal s/o Bhura Lal Gujar was the Muafidar of 190 bighas 19 biswas of land comprising Khasra Nos. 211, 298 and 328. A certified copy of the Jamabandi for the Samvat Year 2011 to 2014 has been annexed and marked as Annexure-1, According to the petitioners their father Jagannath s/o Sarwan was cultivating 43 bighas 6 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No. 328 as a sub-tenant since Samvat 2009-2010. At the time of the coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the 1955 Act)' on October 15, 1955, the petitioner father Shri Jagannath was entered as Zaili (Sub-tenant in the annual registers and as such he acquired khatedari rights under section 19(1)(a) of the Act.2. It has been further alleged that Muafi lands of Shri Chhittar Lal were resumed under provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption Jagirs Act, 1952...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN138
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(2)WLN630
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order passed by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court dated 9-12-1985 and 2-5-1985 in criminal case of 84 of 1984.2. The dispute between the parties i.e. the petitioner Dr. Hari Kishan Gupta and his wife Smt. Pramod Rani on the one hand and Riskant Chaturvedi respondent on the other hand relate to the strained relationship between alleged land lord and tenant. The petitioners are not prepared to treat Chaturvedi as tenant and they alleged that he was family guest in the residential premises in 'C Scheme Jaipur and wanted the apartment to be returned. Since Chaturvedi was not prepared to vacate the premises there were two civil suits, one by Chaturvedi for restraining Mr. Gupta and Mrs. Gupta from evicting him and other one by Mr. Gupta against Chaturvedi for possession from Chaturvedi.3. The parties did not stop with the civil litigation and it appears that on 28-7-1982 Chaturvedi filed a repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(2)WLN686
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Kota, confirming the judgment passed by Munsif, Kota and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant, for permanent injunction.2. The plaintiff appellant was appointed as Chief Designer by M/s Instrumentation Limited, Kota, defendent No. 2, by an order dated 18th December, 1964 (Ex. A-2) which contained condition No. 13, Condition No. 13 runs as under:Not with standing anything to the contrary here in before contained, the Company reserves the right to terminate your appointment during the period of training without assigning any reason upon giving you one calendar month's notice in writing on either side;On successful completion of your training your services will be continued, subject to satisfactory performance, and the appointment will be terminable by 3 months notice by the company or pay with allowances as admissible in lieu thereof, during the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN774
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. In this group of writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, who are licensees for the exclusive privilege of selling by retail country liquor, have challenged the validity of - (1) Section 42(e)(iii) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, (here in after referred to as 'the Act'); (2) Notification dated 25th May, 1985, amending the Rajasthan Issue and Sale Prices of Country Liquor Rules, 1964 (here in after referred to as 'the Issue Price Rules'); and (3) Conditions Nos. (1)(ga) and 22 (kha) of the Licences issued in their favour.2. In response to the Notification issued by the Excise Commissioner on December 26, 1983 inviting tenders for the grant of licences for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 to sell, in retail, country liquor at the various shops in Rajasthan, the petitioners submitted their tenders and were granted lincences which are in form C.L (I) G. prescribed by the Excise Commissioner under Rule 93 of the Rajasthan Excise Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN10
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption.2. Defendant Nos. 2 to 8 sold a portion of the Haveli situated at Bordi-ka-Rasta, Jaipur in Chowkri Modikhana, to defendant No. 1, Smt. Gyarsi Devi, by a sale deed dated 7-8-1962 for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. The plaintiff being a co-sharer in the house had a preferential right of preemption as against the vendee, Smt. Gyarsi Devi who had no share in the said Haveli. It was further asserted in the plaint that the amount of Rs. 6,000/- stated in the sale deed was fictitious, and in fact, only Rs. 4,000/- were paid but since in the sale deed it had been shown that Rs. 4,500/- were paid in the presence of Registrar, the plaintiff was prepared to pre-empt the property for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- and therefore, the present suit was filed for a decree of pre-emption against the defendants on payment of Rs. 4,500/-.3. The suit was contested by defendant No. I, Smt. Gyarsi Devi. She asserted that she ...
Tag this Judgment!