Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007CriLJ749
..... it is not the intention of the law, as is obvious from section 21 of the seeds act, 1966, that every director, manager, secretary or officer of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence, unless it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable ..... for retest, on 15-10-2003, the complainant non-petitioner filed a complaint under section 7(b) of the seeds act, 1966, read with sections 3/7 of the essential commodities act, 1955 before the trial court. ..... per seeds act, 1966 under section 15 and seeds ..... section 21 of the seeds act, 1966 which reads as follows:21 ..... seeds act, 1966 ..... the company requested the complainant non-petitioner for getting the seeds' samples re-tested in the central seeds testing laboratory but the request was not considered and, in violation of the provisions of the seeds act, the learned trial court took cognizance illegally against the petitioner it is submitted that the company has been supplying the seeds to the farmers all over india for years together but ..... submitted that it should be presumed that being the deputy managing director the petitioner was in-charge of the affairs of the company for the purpose of section 21 of the act and, in case it is presumed that the alleged offence is committed with consent or connivance or on account of neglect, as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 21 of the seeds act, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner.14. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2645
..... the offence on the ground that if at all there is any violation then it is the violation of the seeds (control) order, 1983 (for short, 'the order, 1983' hereinafter) and, therefore, if any offence has been committed then the offence has been committed under the seeds act, 1966 (for short, 'the act, 1966' hereinafter) and the complaint could have been filed for violation of the provisions of the ..... had the complaint been filed under the act, 1966, the accused-petitioners would have a right to get the seeds re-analysed from the central laboratory as there exists, such provision for getting the sample re-tested by the central laboratory, whereas there ..... learned counsel for the petitioners submits that had the prosecution been launched under the act, 1966 then there are certain provisions which prescribe the procedure for taking the sample and ..... of the order, 1983 clearly provides the inspection, taking of sample and its analysis by the seeds laboratory and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order, 1983 does not provide the procedure ..... it may or may not be analogous to the procedure prescribed under the act of 1955 or the rules made thereunder, but at any rate, it cannot be said that no procedure has been provided under the order 1983 and on these premises, the revision petition came ..... act, 1955 does not provide a provision for re-testing of the sample of re-branded seeds by the central laboratory then the petitioners cannot claim such a right unless it is provided under the statute, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1985]60STC356(Raj)
..... in this connection, it was observed as under :but so far as cotton seeds are concerned, it is difficult to accept the contention that the sale of cotton seeds must be treated as a sale of declared goods for the purpose of section 15(a) or (b) of the central sales tax act, 1966. ..... 17 given by the dealer, and answer to this question will depend upon the answer to a further question whether the ginned cotton (by a process of manufacture separating the cotton from the cotton seeds) and cotton seeds are one and the same commodity or the ginned cotton and the cotton seeds are two separate commodities, for, the declaration was for sale of cotton within rajasthan. ..... it was ruled by their lordships that though cotton in its unginned state contained cotton seeds, the cotton and the seeds were separated by the manufacturing process of ginning and the seeds so separated could not be said to be cotton itself or part of the cotton and that the dealer was, therefore, not entitled to deduct the sale price of cotton seeds from the purchase turnover under section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the punjab sales tax act, 1948. ..... but it is by a manufacturing process that the cotton and the seed are separated and it is not correct to say that the seeds so separated in cotton itself or part of the cotton. ..... it was further held that the sale of cotton seeds cannot be treated as sale of declared goods for the purpose of section 15(a) or (b) of the central sales tax act, 1956. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1988Raj33; 1987(2)WLN805
..... of the above discussion, it follows that clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 is invalid being violative not only of article 19(1)(f) but also of articles 14 and 15 of the constitution of india. ..... are for pre-emption on the basis of right of pre-emption contained in section 6(1)(iii) of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 on the ground of easement of light and air and passage of dirty water. ..... in the court of district judge, jodhpur, claiming a decree for pre-emption on the basis of his right of pre-emption contained in section 6( l)(iii) of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 on the ground of easement of light and air. ..... of persons, the right of preemption given by clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 must be held to be unconstitutional. ..... the punjab act giving the right of pre-emption contained six clauses of which the fifth clause was in pan materia with section 6(1)(iii) of the rajasthan preemption act, 1966. ..... of section 6 of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966, is as under : --'section 6. ..... suits in all the three cases must fail on the short ground that the right to pre-emption claimed by the plaintiffs in each case is founded only on section 6(1)(iii) of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966. ..... the plaintiff is owner of adjoining urban immovable property and he claims the right of pre-emption on the ground of easement of air and light under section 6(1)(iii) of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2009Raj73; RLW2009(3)Raj2441
..... 25,000/-; the defendant also did not give any notice to the plaintiff under section 8 of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 (for short 'the act of 1966'), therefore, the present suit was filed with a prayer that a decree of pre-emption be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. ..... house feeling aggrieved by sale, more specifically because the common wall having been partly owned by both the neighbours, can fit in the scheme of part (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 and thus, the same having been held unconstitutional, no right can be seen in the neighbour, a part owner of the wall to enforce pre-emption. ..... in view of the above discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to prove his fight of pre-emption under section 6 of the act of 1966 and even if his right is assumed to have been established, though it is not established in the present case, he is estopped to claim his right of pre-emption as he waived his fight in the year 1986 when the property in dispute ..... from the finding of the trial court, it is clear that the definition of 'co-sharer', which has been defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the act of 1966, has not been considered at all, which says that 'corsharer' used in relation to any immovable property, means any person entitled as an owner or a proprietor to any share or part in such property. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2009Raj3
..... a preferential right of pre-emption being nearer in relationship to the vendor gopi chand, therefore, he excludes the right of pre-emption of pukhraj devi in view of the provisions contained in section 6 (3) of the act of 1966, therefore, on this issue the trial court has committed no error in holding that plaintiff-ram prakash has a preferential right of pre-emption over the disputed property in comparison to smt. ..... before sale of the disputed property the plaintiff-appellant ram prakash was neither given any notice under section 8 of the right of pre-emption act, 1966 nor was he offered to purchase the same, therefore, a prayer was made for a decree of pre-emption in his favour. ..... property was being used as jewellery shop commercial establishment much prior and at the time of its sale to defendant vendee pushpa agrawal, therefore, in view of restrictions enumerated in section 5(1)(a) of the act, 1966 the plaintiff-appellants ram prakash and pukhraj devi cannot claim right of pre-emption. ..... mainly on the ground that the disputed property was commercial establishment-shop, therefore right of preemption does not accrue by virtue of prohibitory clause contained in section 5 of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 (in short the act of 1966).12. ..... in the act of 1966 the 'shop ..... are made or prepared for sale and sold or trading activities are being done is a commercial establishment or a shop, therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the suits in view of section 5(i)(a) of the act of 1966. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2008Raj13; RLW2008(1)Raj681
..... aggrieved by sale, more specifically because the common wall having been partly owned by both the neighbours, can fit in the scheme of part (iii) of sub- section (1) of section 6 of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 and thus, the same having been held un-constitutional, no right can be seen in the neighbour, a part owner of the wall to enforce pre-emption. ..... the term 'partner' has not been defined in the rajasthan pre-emption act,1966 and according to the definition of co-sharer in the act of 1966 a co-sharer means the person entitled as an owner or a proprietor to any share or party in ..... the term co-sharer has been defined in section 2 (1) of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 which is quoted herein below:(i) 'co'-sharer'- used in relation to any immovable property, means any person entitled as an owner or a proprietor to any share or part in such property, whether his name is or is not recorded as such owner or proprietor ..... of co-sharer as given in section 2(1) of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966 defines an owner of the part of a premises as a co-sharer ..... was of the opinion that the following question is involved in the appeal:whether co-owner of a wall situated between the two adjacent immovable properties, are co-sharers within the meaning of section 2 (1) of the rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966, read with other provisions of the act so as to give right to the co-owner of the party - wall to pre-empt the transfer of other immovable property under section 6(1) of the act. 2. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1969Raj162; [1969]23STC74(Raj)
..... the petitioner goes on to state that while his application for refund of the fee for exemption certificate was pending, it received a notice under section 12 of the act dated 1-3-1966 signed by shri prahlad rai sharma, who had been meanwhile transferred as the commercial taxes officer, special circle, jaipur. ..... 'it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that cotton and oil seeds are declared goods and the levy of purchase tax under section 5a of the act in respect of cotton and oil seeds is neither definite nor ascertainable and there is a possibility of the tax being levied at mere than one stage. ..... by a notification dated 26-3-62, under section 5a of the act, the state government specified the goods for the purpose of this section, and raw wool, cotton and oil-seeds were included among such goods. ..... , 1963, the state government withdrew all notifications regarding exemption of certain commodities including raw wool and by notification dated 23-3-1963, the state government directed that the rate of tax on sale of raw wool, oil-seeds and cotton among other goods mentioned therein would be 2%.12. ..... 83 of 1967, has challenged the validity of 'purchase tax' on purchase of oil seeds under section 5-a of the act also on the ground that the levy is in contravention of section 15 of the central sales tax act, no. ..... it is alleged that the government of rajasthan by its notification dated 7-10-1960 applied section 5-a to certain transactions in oil seeds and subjected them to purchase tax. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]63STC78(Raj)
..... for the dealer-assessee, while assailing the order dated 2nd march, 1979, has raised the following contentions:(1) that the penalties could not be imposed on the dealer-assessee under section 16(1)(c) of the act as it was for the assessing authority to prove that he had no reasonable cause for not furnishing the prescribed returns before it levied the penalties,(2) that urad and gram are cattle feed and, ..... emphasis before the board was on section 12, inasmuch as the board has stated in the order as under:in this connection it may be observed that consequent to the amendment in section 12 of the act with effect from 5th september, 1969, the period of limitation of eight years was to be reckoned from the dates of the issue of notices and not from the dates of the assessment orders. ..... found as under:(1) that the penalties were rightly imposed upon the dealer-assessee under section 16(1)(c) of the act;(2) that the assessing authority should determine the tax to be levied on the sales of sua, methi and ajwayan deeming these commodities to be oil-seeds and, therefore, declared commodities under section 14 of the central sales tax act, 1956 (no. ..... of the record that was shown to the learned counsel for the dealer-assessee, he submitted that the first notice was issued on 30th june, 1966, in respect of the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. ..... involved in these cases are 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1970-71. ..... 1966-67 return filed for all the fourquarters of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1980WLN295
..... the land could have vested in the government of jaipur only after the determination of the amount of compensation and making of the award under section 16 of the jaipur land acquisition act, 1943 a similar question came up for consideration before a division bench of this court, presided over by the then chief justice shri k.n. ..... an affluent farmer may construct a pucca house and a millioner performing agricultural operations on the land by way of sowing seeds or by making an orchard by planting fruit trees or making a grove also needs some residential place over the land on or just attached to it to store the produce of the land, protect himself and his servants employed on the land ..... reference in this connection may be made to the rajasthan district gazetteers, published in the year 1966 bach and every portion of land, whether in the village or in the town or in the city has been given a 'khasra' number of in the record of rights ..... of 1975 expressly includes 'grove land' within the definition of 'land', the definition of agriculture in sub-section (2) of section 5 of the rajasthan tenancy act reads as under:'agriculture' includes horticulture.learned counsel appearing on behalf on the petitioner and respondent no. ..... board of revenue, rajasthan ilr 1966 (16) rajasthan 219. ..... on september 28, 1966, the petitioner had applied to the secretary, urban improvement trust, jaipur and the municipal commissioner, jaipur for permission to construct a boundary wall, a garage and a chowkidar's .....
Tag this Judgment!