Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(2001)ACC252; 2002ACJ145; 2000(3)WLC357; 2000(2)WLN608
N.N. Mathur and Amaresh K. Singh, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the judgment dated 3.1.96 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 523 of 1994. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the award dated 28.10.93 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in Claim Case No. WE/67 of 3989 awarding a sum of Rs./ 76,856 as well as interest under Section 4-A(3) and penalty under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be briefly summarised as below:Sayed Khan Pathan was working as a driver on truck No. RSY 8071 belonging to Rafiq Khan (respondent No. 8). The truck was insured with the present appellant, namely, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jodhpur under policy No. 30/00143/90 dated 19.8.1989. On 19.8.1989 at 8 a.m., Sayed Khan Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1977WLN357
D.P. Gupta, J.1.This is an appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the wife's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act).2. The respondent filed a petition for divorce before the District Judge Jodhpur in which a decree for divorce was passed on January 4, 1977. The appellant Smt. Priti Parihar filed an appeal in this Court against the aforesaid decree. Along with the appeal she also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act praying for grant of interim maintenance and expenses of the appeal. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 15-4-1977. directed the respondent to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 200/- per month by way of maintenance pendente lite and also awarded her a sum of Rs. 400/- by way of expenses of the appeal. This order has been challenged by the wife in this appeal.3. A preliminary objection has been raised in respect of the maintainability of the appeal and it, has been urged by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1977WLN(UC)137
M.L. Joshi, J.1. These two writ petitions challenge the validity of the levy as the octroi on the petroleum products by the Municipal Council Jodhpur sell from depot of the Indian Oil Corporation at Jodhpur, hereinafter called the respondent No. 2 to its retail outlets viz Dangiavas and Mogda. The petitions are based on almost identical facts and involve common questions of law and so they are being disposed of by a single judgment.2. As the facts and points involved in both the writ petitioner are almost similar it will be sufficient to narrate facts from writ petition NO. 17/76 Parekh Automobiles v. Municipal Council Jodhpur and Anr. as the decision in this case will govern the decision in the another writ petition also.3. The petitioner Parekh Automobiles Co., has a retail outlet for the sale of petroleum products at Dangiavas. The petitioner has been allotted retail outle by the respondent No. 2 for sale of petroleum products such as diesel oil, mobile oil etc. at Dingiavas which i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B.CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.917/2011 M/s. Perfect Thread Mills Limited Vs The Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) cum SDO, Girwa & Anr. Date of Judgment ::17. h November 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.Manish Singhvi and Mr.Anjay Kothari for the appellant Mr.Akhilesh Rajpurohit and Mr.Vinit Sanadhya for the respondent No.2 NHAI Reportable BY THE COURT: Appellant, a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has laid this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') to assail the impugned order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur (for short 'the learned court below') as well as the award dated 02.01.2007 rendered by Arbitral Tribunal and the award dated 11.08.2006 passed by the Competent Authority (LA)-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Girwa insofar as the same relate to compensation for acquisition of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)12VatReporter52
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Instant sales tax revision petition has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-I, Jodhpur against the judgment and order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 804/07/Jodhpur, whereby, the learned Tax Board has affirmed the judgment dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur, whereby, the first appellate authority set aside the additional demand of tax/surcharge and interest for the difference amount of 4 per cent of tax which is created on the ground that as per Entry No. 176 of the notification dated 22.3.2003, 12% tax is leviable upon oxygen and industrial gases.2. Earlier, in pursuance of tax assessment order dated 7.3.2005, the respondent dealer deposited tax and surcharge at the rate of 8 per cent for the year 2002-03; but, later on, demand was created for the difference amount of 4% tax and surcharge and interest on the ground that as per notfn issued by the Government o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)131CTR(Raj)328; [1997]225ITR178(Raj); 1996WLC(Raj)UC196; 1996(1)WLN23
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, by its order dated September 23, 1991, for the assessment year1986-87, referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing that investment allowance may be allowed on X-ray machines, ultrasound scanner, foetal monitor and air-conditioning equipment as provided under Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) read with Section 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, these machines and equipments can legally be called machinery or plant installed in a small-scale industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing as provided in Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) read with Section 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. The assessee, Trinity Hospital, Jodhpur, is a registered firm and is runni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)476
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. In this petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer dated August 28, 1972.2. The petitioner filed a suit for possession Under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on October 4, 1958 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi, alleging that agricultural lands comprised in Khasra Nov 62 and 62/1, including the Pipalia well situated in village Kotra, Tehsil Osian District Jodhpur was under the tenancy of the plaintiffs, who held a 'Bapi Patta' dated December 4, 1942 in respect of the aforesaid agricultural lands, including the Pipalia well. Defendant Bhura was allowed by means of an agreement dated September 12, 1950, produced in the court of the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, to continue to remain in possession of the agricultural lands in question as a sub-tenant thereof for a period of two years. The plaintiffs alleged that after the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1991)IILLJ538Raj; 1990(1)WLN176
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. Petitioner Union filed the suit in the Court of learned Addl., Munsif No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur and prayed therein that the orders dated November, 30, 1984 transferring the petitioners from the post of Assistant Inspector (Encroachment) quashed. Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. was submitted by the Union which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, vide order dated February 23, 1985.2. The case of the respondents is that the petitioners were appointed substantively on the post of Munshi in the year 1981 or so. All these employees were required subsequently to perform the duties of Assistant Inspector (Encroachment) on work charge basis. The grade and the scale of the Munshi and the Assistant Inspector (Encroachment) is the same. However, on November 9, 1982, again all the persons were asked to perform the duties of Munshi/L.D.C and to discontinue functioning as Assistant Inspector. It was submitted that the order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj151
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition, has been filed by a Trust known as His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur Museum Trust, City Palace, Jaipur, (hereinafter called the Trust) under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the levy of entertainment tax on the proceeds received by the Trust for allowing admission of the visitors to the museum on payment of certain fees prescribed by the Trust.2. His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur by a registered deed created a Trust on the 16th April, 1959, and founded a museum in a portion of the city palace, Jaipur. It was a public charitable Trust. His Highness had a vast collection of various articles of historical, scientific, literary and archaeological importance which came in his possession from several generations. The Maharaia relinquished all his rights., title and interest in those articles and handed over them to be placed in a museum for which the aforesaid Trust was created by him. According to the petitioner, this museum was foun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)218CTR(Raj)30; [2008]307ITR226(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Umaid Charitable Trust, Pali being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jodhpur dated 16.12.2004 refusing to renew the registration of exemption of the petitioner - Trust by the impugned order passed under Section 80G(5(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the said order, exemption certificate granted to the petitioner Trust under Section 80G of the Act by order dated 20.3.2002 was effective for a period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 and the petitioner - Trust by application for renewal of said exemption on the prescribed from No. 10G on 23.8.2004. However, the learned Commissioner found that in income and expenditure statement of the trust for the period ended on 31.3.2004, the trust had spent a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for repairing and colouring of Lord Vishnu's temple out of its total income for the said previous year of Rs. 26,727/- and therefore since the petitioner - Trust had...
Tag this Judgment!