Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-07-2006
Reported in : III(2007)BC288; RLW2007(2)Raj1589
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. M/s. Stuti Electronics Limited, petitioner herein, seeks to challenge the order dated March 31, 1998 denying the grant of subidy to the petitioner company and the Notification dated Feb. 28, 1998 whereby proviso after clause 4(L) of 'the State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for New Industries 1990' was inserted providing that the benefit of subsidy would be available only to those small scale industrial units whose investment in Plant and Machinery did not exceed Rs. 60 lacs. The amendment came into force retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. April, 1997.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner purchased plots in Industrial Area Bhiwadi and executed lease agreement dated March 27, 1995. A sum of Rs. 330 lacs was sanctioned by the Industrial Development Bank of India for setting up the industrial units vide orders dated August 22, 1995 and December 2, 1996. The petitioner got provisional registration certificate in the category of SSI Unit on January 28, 1998 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-20-2006
Reported in : AIR2007Raj24; RLW2007(1)Raj210; 2006(1)WLC7
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Sentinels of our past, repository of our culture and heritage, forts and palaces dot the hills and desert of Rajasthan One such fort is the fort of Chomu, a town situated thirty three kilometers from Jaipur. Scion of the royal family of Jaipur State, the Nathawats started the construction of the fort in the 17th century, and extensively enlarged it in the 18th century. The fort houses a palace complex and the fortress walls ('the Parkota') and a ditch ('the Khai'). The fort is the bone of contention between the petitioners and the State. Vide Notification dated 28-3-78, published on 8 4-1978 in the Rajasthan Gazette, the State had declared the fort to be a 'protected monument' under Section 3(4A) of the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Antiquities Act, 1961 (henceforth to be referred to as the State Act, for short). The petitioners are challenging the validity of the said notification. They are also challenging the letter dated 16-9-81, whereby the objec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-22-2006
Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj1387
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him disability element of pension in terms of Pension Regulations and the Causality Pension Awards Rules and to pay him amount of leave encashment for 135 days together with interest @ 18% per annum.2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army as an Infantry G.D. Soldier on 07th January, 1988. He upon completion of training was inducted as a Paratrooper and posted to serve at No. 1 Para (SF) during the year 1989. According to the petitioner, at the time of his enrollment he was medically examined and was certified to be in medical category 'AYE' i.e. fit for all duties both in peace and War theaters at all places in India and Abroad. He served in the field as well as in operational areas during his service career till he was discharged from duties in January, 2001. When the petitioner was proceeding from Liemakhong to Ukhrul for an operation alongwi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-10-2006
Reported in : 2007(34)PTC219(Raj)
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. This judgment shall decide the fate of Civil Original Suit No. 21/2004 filed by plaintiff Ramesh Kumar, the respondent No. 1 herein, who had at the first instance approached the District Court, Sri Ganganagar on 06.04.1998, by filing a suit however amended the suit later on, which in due course of time under the orders of this Court transferred to the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Ganganagar and was decided allowing the prayer of the plaintiff with regard to permanent injunction by giving direction to the effect that defendants themselves or through their agent directly or indirectly shall not trade in the copies, registers and slip pads using 'pooja' name.2. The case of the plaintiff was that he alongwith defendant No. 1 started business in partnership under the name 'Pooja Udyog' in the year 1985 and their firm was manufacturing and dealing in the copies, registers and slip pads etc. but on account of dispute between the partners having been cropped u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-19-2006
Reported in : III(2006)ACC388
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant has challenged the impugned award dated 16.5.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') whereby it has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant ostensibly on the ground that there is a delay of nine days in lodging of the FIR, and that there is animosity between the claimant and the driver of the offending vehicle.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.2000 when the appellant was coming back to his village Nayabas and was walking on the road, from the opposite direction a motorcycle, bearing Registration No. RJ-14I3-M-5297, driven by the respondent No. 1, Vijay Pal, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the appellant. Consequently, the appellant suffered an injury on the left side of ribs as well as an injury on the nose. He had further suffered eighteen scratches on his nose. Due to the accident, his left leg was also fractured. He was hospitalised fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-21-2006
Reported in : (2007)211CTR(Raj)156; [2007]291ITR244(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These appeals arise from a common order passed by the Tribunal by which 12 appeals, 6 by the assessee and 6 by the Revenue, were decided by a common order and the 12 appeals detailed above have arisen out of that common order relating to the different assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.3. While admitting the appeals, the following questions have been framed as substantial questions of law inviting consideration in these appeals:1. Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty proceedings and the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 271D are vitiated being time-barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act held to be applicable whereas the case of the assessee is covered under Section 275(1)(a) of the Act since the penalty proceedings pertained to the assessment order under appeal an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-12-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj3239
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Sawai Mad-hopur, whereby the learned Judge has decreed the plaintiffs' suit.2. Plaintiff Ramjani filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and possession on 0.1.1975. On 5.5.1977 the plaintiff filed an application for amendment in the plaint, which, after hearing counsel for the parties, was allowed vide order dated 22.7.1977 and accordingly the plaintiff filed amended plaint on 6.8.1977. The plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of the property, viz., 3 shops and 3 rooms on the floor on the basis of Patta issued on 15.9.58. He continued to reside in the rooms. Out of 3 shops, he gave center shop to his father Chand Khan for his residence and let out remaining shops to the tenants. It was averred that his mother died when he was 8 years old and after the death of his mother, his father got married to Smt. Bashiran, defendant N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-20-2006
Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj1067
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Dr. Bansilal Jakhar seeking relaxation in the outer age limit for appointment on the post of Head Master, Secondary School. He was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III vide order dated 14th Sept., 1985. Later however he accepted the appointment as primary teacher in Kandriya Vidhayalaya, Uttarlai, Barmer on 10.12.1986 where he was promoted as teacher grade-H (TGT) and worked upto 28th Nov., 1994. The petitioner then again came back in the employment of the respondent as Lecturer of the School Education as Political Science vide order dated 29.1.1994.2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement in some time in April, 2002 inviting thereby applications for 25 posts of Head Masters, Secondary School. The petitioner also applied pursuant to the said advertisement. The case of the petitioner is that he was eligible for such appointment as per Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-09-2006
Reported in : 2007(34)PTC246(Raj)
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the Judgment & decree dated 13.09.2005 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Civil Original Suit No. 100/2004 (Miraj Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashish Tea Company and Ors.) allowing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction.2. The facts leading to this case are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, infringement of copyright, passing off trademark & goodwill and rendition of accounts in the trial Court with the averments that it is a limited company registered under the previsions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Uper Ki Oden, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan) and is entitled to the exclusive use ox trademark 'Miraj' for the goods manufactured by it and, therefore, the defendants be restrained from using the said trademark.3. The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint was to the effect that plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-06-2006
Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj969
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Defendant No. 1 Mohan Lal has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24th of September, 1986 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 54/1981, whereby the First appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for pre-emption in respect of the property, in dispute.2. This Court formulated the following substantial questions of law involved in this second appeal:1. Whether in absence of any pleading, evidence or issue as to the matters covered by the provisions of Section 6(1)(ii) and (iii) pleading the stair case to be common and/or the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 being those of the owners of the property servient or dominant to the property transferred having been specifically pleaded and established?2. Whether the pla...
Tag this Judgment!