Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-17-1987
Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)369
Surender Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 22-1-1986 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant, in limine.2. The petitioner-appellant is a manufacturer of Ayurvedic Drugs and is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Indian Products, Madhopuria Street, Beawar. District Ajmer. The Drug Controller-cum-Director Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (herein after referred to as the 'the Drug Controller') granted the petitioner a licence on 2-4-1980 for manufacturing certain Ayurvedic Drugs, including Madhu Munnaka Vati and the said licence was renewed, from time to time, and had been renewed till 31-12-1985 The Central Government Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi issued permission for use of Indian Hemp (BHANG) in the manufactcre of Munnaka Vati by order dated 23rd April, 1980 (Annexure-4). The above noted drugs have their patents verified by the Drug Controller (vide Annexure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-15-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Raj164; 1988(1)WLN247; 1988(1)WLN663
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13th Dec. 1972 whereby the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with costs holding that the suit is barred by time as the period taken in litigation at Delhi cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.2. I may state a few relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal.3. The plaintiff Surajbhan instituted the suit against the defendants on 13th March,1958 in the court of Senior Sub-Judge at Delhi which was registered as No. 95 of 1958. The suit was for the recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 11,880.10 Annas. Before the filing of that suit a suit for permanent injunction was filed in the court of Sub-Judge Delhi but the same was allowed to be withdrawn by the order dated 27th Dec. 1957 with the permission to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. According to the plaintiff the cause of action arose at Delhi in July 1956 when the agreement took place subsequently on 1st Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-21-1987
Reported in : AIR1987Raj120; 1987(1)WLN193; 2(1989)WLN(Rev)446
Bhatnagar, J. 1. The five writ petitions referred to this Bench involve a question of considerable importance inasmuch as the relevant statute is the expression of the anxiety of the Legislature to implement the ideals of the framers of the Constitution. 2. India is a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic. The Consitution of India secures to all citizens justice, social, economic and political. The directive principles of State Policy in Part-IV of the Constitution embody the aims and objects of the State under the republican Constitution that it is a 'Welfare State'. Those directives are implemented by Legislation. Article 39 of the Constitution enumerates certain principles of policy to be followed by the State. For the economic uplift of the citizens it directs that the State shall in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally have the right to an adequate means of livelihood; that the ownership and control of the material re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-19-1987
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Raj)38; [1987]168ITR516(Raj)
Agrawal, J.1. In these references relating to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant-trust could not be granted exemption under Section 11/12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claims of the appellant-trust in respect of exemption under Section 11/12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 were forfeited by virtue of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) read with the Explanation to Section 13(1) and Section 13(2)(a) and Section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-14-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Raj205; 1988(1)WLN730
Jasraj Chopra, J. 1. These two appeals : one by the claimant Smt. Kamala Devi and other filed by the Border Security Force, Jodhpur arise out of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated 24-4-1974 in a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' herein). 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this reference briefly stated are: that the Border Security Force, Jodhpur (for short the B. S. F.') required some land at Jodhpur for the establishment of its unit and Staff Training College. The Government of Rajasthan issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 9-9-1970 and ultimately a notice was served on the claimant Smt. Kamla Devi, owner of the land on 5-10-1970 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land is situated just near the Balsamand. It is measuring about 38 bighas and 15 biswas comprising of Khasras Nos. 1514, 1514/1, 1599 and 1600/1. This land was purchased by Smt. Kamla Devi from one Johrimal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-06-1987
Reported in : [1987]67STC103(Raj)
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. The appellant, M/s. Centuary Ecka, Jodhpur, is a duly registered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having its registered office at 182, Balniketan Road, Jodhpur, and its branch office at Pali. This firm is also registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Rajasthan Act') as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Central Act'). This firm is doing business in purchasing and selling of packing materials, that is, waterproof paper (bituminised paper), the PVC bags and poly propylene bags, etc., at Jodhpur as well as at Pali. During the financial year 1978-79, the appellant-firm effected sale of waterproof paper only worth Rs. 2,32,074.50 at its head office at Jodhpur and worth Rs. 25,757.10 at its branch office at Pali and it charged sales tax from the customers at 4 per cent treating them as packing material and deposited the tax amount a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-02-1987
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN600
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This revision is directed against the appellate order of the learned Additional District Judge No 1, Udaipur dated 16-12-1986 whereby the learned lower court has accepted the appeal against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur City (North), Udaipur dated 28-10 1986 by which the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are: that the plaintiff-non petitioner Smt. Vishwa Vijay Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1970 by defendant petitioner No. 1 Vidhya Bhawan Society, Fatehpura, Udaipur. She was confirmed as Assistant Teacher on 10-8-1973. However, in pursuance of the resolution on the recommendation of the Staff Selection Committee at its meeting held on 11-9-1984, she was appointed as Head Mistress of the Nursery School by the Administrator of the Vidhya Bh...
Tag this Judgment!