Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-11-2005
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj517
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 19.2.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sojat City in Civil Original Suit No. 62/1990 (51/2001), Gautam Raj & Anr. vs. Ugam Raj. By the order impugned dated 19.2.2005 the Court below decided issues No. 1, 11-A, 11-B and 11-C framed while adjudicating the suit for eviction from premises filed by the respondent plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs respondent No. 2 and 3 preferred a suit in the year 1990 before the competent civil Court seeking decree against the petitioner defendant for eviction from premises rented and for recovery of rent. After filing of written statement by the petitioner defendant the Court adjudicating the suit framed 12 issues. Three additional issues numbered as 11-A, 11-B and 11-C were framed by the Court below as a consequence of acceptance of an application preferred by the petitioner defendant under Rule 17 Order 6 CPC for making amendment in the written statement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-14-2005
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1114; 2005(2)WLC799
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The defendant-tenant has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.9.1987 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh camp Sangria in Civil Appeal No. 16/1983 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and maintained the decree for eviction dated 19.5.1983 passed by the Munsif, Sangria in Civil Suit No. 23/1980.2. This appeal was admitted on 1.12.1987 while formulating the following as substantial questions of law involved in this appeal:-(1) Whether the learned Trial Court has committed error in striking out the entire defence of the defendant appellant for not depositing the rent of the subsequent month of March, 1981?(2) Whether the findings of the learned lower courts on the reasonable and bonafide necessity are perverse?(3) Whether the findings of the learned lower court are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 14(2), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950?(4) Whether...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-01-2005
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj69; 2005(4)WLC587
Shiv Kumar Sharma J.1. Two accused appellants namely Nizam a Shafique have been held guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 213/2001 and each of the accused appellants has been sentenced as under:--Under Section 302 IPC :--Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, six months imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC :--Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, one month imprisonment.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. A written report (Ex.P1) was submitted by informant Shahjad (PW4) at Police Station Maniya, District Dholpur on 26.1.2001 at 4 pm with the averments that one Koke Singh (PW13) came to him with the oral information that at about 3 PM he (PW13) went to his (informant) agricultural field to have the fodder (Karab) he saw one dead body lying under the fodder (Karab) whose neck and penis ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-02-2005
Reported in : (2006)206CTR(Raj)620; [2006]286ITR589(Raj)
1. These appeals raise common questions in respect of the claim to depreciation for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively.2. The questions that have been raised in Appeal No. 83 of 2001 read as under:Question No. 1 : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction on account of depreciation in respect of motor cars manufactured outside India which are acquired by the assessee after February 28, 1975, in view of the second proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) ?Question No. 2 : Whether in view of the findings reached by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the vehicles in question were used in a business of running them on hire ?Question No. 3 : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to hold that the assessee was engaged in the business of running the motor cars, manufactured inside India, on hire, so as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-17-2005
Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2761; 2005(3)WLC508
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 4.12.2001 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the judgment and award dated 2.8.2001 Annex. 14 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted an application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 and has stated that before deciding the writ petition, application under Section 17B of the Act of 1947 should be decided first. He has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Dhan v. The Judge, Labour Court and Ors. 20032 WLC Raj. 485 : RLW 20032 Raj. 999 and Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Judge, Labour Court 1990-LB2-GJX 0111-Raj.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Workmen v. Hindustan Vegetables Oil Corporation Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-28-2005
Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2433; 2005(4)WLC34
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Civil Original Suit No. 17/1977 (2/1972) filed by the respondent Sohanram for specific performance of the contract for sale of agricultural land in the alternative for refund of Rs. 1500/- with interest was decreed for both the reliefs in the alternative by the learned Munsif, Sardarshahar on 5.10.1978 with a further decree for injunction. The learned District Judge, Churu, in Appeal No. 67/1978 modified the decree by setting aside the relief of injunction but otherwise maintained the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant on 24.8.1982. The present appeal by the legal representatives of the original defendant Bhinvaram was admitted by this Court on 2.2.1983 while formulating the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the agreement to sale should not be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff did not express his readiness and willingness to perform his part o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-21-2005
Reported in : 2005(103)ECC152; 2005(186)ELT3(Raj)
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Amongst others, the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of tyres for which it has its manufacturing facility at Kankroli, Rajasthan. For the purposes of its manufacturing in Rajasthan of such tyres, the petitioner imports Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric (NTCF) from various manufacturers/exporters of other countries including from those situated in Peoples Republic of China. The NTCF so imported is comprised of three different varieties namely, the grey fabric, dipped fabric and Cycle Tyre Cord Fabric (CTC). The petitioner is also a member of Automotive Tyre Manufacturer Association (ATMA). The association represents the collective interest of tyre manufacturers.2. The Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry (ASFI), whose members are the manufacturers of synthetic fibre in India, including NTCF, submitted a written application before the Designated Author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-18-2005
Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2823; 2005(4)WLC408
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The plaintiff have preferred this intra-court appeal against the judgment dated 21.11.1990 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil First Appeal No. 31/1988, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and maintained the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1987 passed by the District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Suit No. 22/1971, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of the alleged arrears of salary, pension and gratuity of late Tara Chand Dosi was partly decreed only towards the amount of pension and gratuity against the defendant No. 1 State of Rajasthan and rest of the claim was disallowed.2. The plaintiff appellants are heirs of late Tara Chand Dosi who was an Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile State of Sirohi having initially entered the service on 4.7.1918. An order appointing him Assistant Engineer, Abu Road was passed on 22.1.1948. While he continued to serve as such, on 8.11.1948, the then Sirohi State entered into ...
Tag this Judgment!