Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-03-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Raj180
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner-Corporation calls in question assessment and imposition of tax amounting to Rs. 22,248/- by the Assistant Collector, Land and Building Tax Department, Sri Ganganagar under Section 6 Of the Rajasthan Lands & Buildings Tax Act, 1964 in respect of the land and Building situated in District Sri Ganganagar.2. The factual matrix of the present writpetition lies in short compass. It is alleged inthe writ petition by the petitioner thatAssistant Collector, Land and Building TaxDepartment, Sri Ganganagar (respondentNo. 2) issued a notice under the provision ofthe Rajasthan lands and Buildings Tax Act,1964 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ofl1964) to the properties of the petitionersituated in Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner-Corporation did not file any return butappeared before respondent No. 2 in responseto the notice issued by him and urged beforehim that the land or building of the petitioner-Corporation cannot be assessed under the Actof 1964. Respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-05-1995
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC44; 1995(2)WLN300
Arun Madan, J.1. This special appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, arises out of the order, dated 25th June, 1991, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 1858/1991; whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits.2. The facts giving rise to the filling of this appeal briefly stated, are that in pursuance of the Advertisement issued by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vide Notification, dated 12th January, 1990, the petitioner-appellant applied for the post of PBX Operator. She was called for interview which was held at Jodhpur on 3rd March, 1990. Selection Committee interviewd the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates. The petitioner-appellant was found suitable and appointed as PBX Operator at Jaipur Bench of this Court in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1680 for period of six months on temporary basis vide order, dated 5th March, 1990 (Annex. 1). It was stated that the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-26-1995
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1569; 1995(3)WLC531
ORDERGyan Sudha Misra, J.1. These two Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed under Section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitoners, Dilip S. Dahanukar & Dr. M.J. Salve, Chairman & Managing Director, respectively, of Ecomax Agro Systems Ltd (since merged with Good Value Marketing Company Ltd.) for quashing the order dated 27-8-1994 passed by the special Court of Judicial Magisirate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan Jaipur, taking cognizance of offence under Section 68 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') in pursuance of which processes have been issued to the petitioners.2. The impugned order was passed on the basis of a complaint which was lodged by the complainant, Shri Padam Kumar Khaitan, a lawyer by profession, on August 3, 1993, for offences under Section 63, 64, 65, 68 of the Act and also under Sections 405, 409 & 416, IPC. The cognizance has. however, been taken only under Section 68 of the Companies Act.3. It has been stated in the complaint that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-20-1995
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ712Raj; 1996(1)WLC322
N.L. Tibrewal1. The petitioner Society in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the award dated August 17, 1994 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur in a reference made by the State Government under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).2. The claim of the non-petitioner-workman was that he was appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk on October 16, 1990 against a vacant post after due selection and calling application by advertisement. Initially, he was given appointment for two months and thereafter, vide order dated December 17, 1990, the period was extended upto March 31, 1991, but by another letter dated March 14, 1991, his services were terminated w.e.f. March 31, 1991. He then made a representation, on which the Honorary Secretary of the petitioner Society passed an order on March 18, 1991 that he be further appointed for one month and the performance of his work be examined, but, inspite of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-31-1995
Reported in : 1996ACJ447; 1996(3)WLC674
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The expression 'an appeal' occurring in Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (and now in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) has given rise to these matters before the Full Bench. Does the expression 'an appeal' connote number of appeals available to an aggrieved person or is it used as requirement of grammar of English language to write the correct language? This, in short, is the question to be examined and decided by the Full Bench in both these appeals. The special appeals arise out of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'). In both these special appeals, the Division Bench of this court by order dated 10.8.1993 referred the following question to a larger Bench:Whether a special appeal lies under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against a judgment of the learned single Judge under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-08-1995
Reported in : AIR1996Raj178; 1996(1)WLC556
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-10-1995, passed by the learned single Judge, by which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant and held that the decision taken by the respondents is only on the administrative side and involves technicalities of the matter and no vested rights of the petitioner stand infringed by the action of the respondents.2. Bids for contract of pre-qualification were invited by the Irrigation Department of the Government of Rajasthan for earth-work of main Earthen Dam from RD 355 to 595-M including pitching and rock toe and the construction of Head out-let sluice of Mewara Minor Irrigation Project constructed across Majam river about 35 kilometres from Dungarpur near Mewara village (district Dungarpur). The parties interested in the contract were asked to apply for pre-qualification in the manner set-out in the Tender form. It was, also, mentioned in the Tender Form that the tende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-03-1995
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ610Raj; 1995(2)WLN507
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of all the above writ petitions as the point involved is common in all these writ petitions, namely, whether the employees of the canteen could be considered the employees of H.M.T. Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) or/are the employees of H.M.T. Employees Co-operative Canteen, Ltd. (hereinafter called co-operative canteen).Writ petition No. 1341 of 1986 has been filed by H.M.T. Employees Union against the award of the Labour Court, dated March 27, 1986, in which it was decided that the H.M.T. Employees Co-operative Canteen Ltd., is the employer of V.N. Bose and not the company. A prayer is made that the said employee be declared the employee of the company irrespective of the fact that he was working in the co-operative canteen.Writ Petition No. 1477 of 1987 has been filed by the H.M.T. Employees Union against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated November 5, 1986, in which it was declared that the employees of the canteen are r...
Tag this Judgment!