Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-16-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2408; 2004(3)WLC782
goyal, j.1. the defendant-tenant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned additional district judge no. 8, jaipur city, jaipur on 21.2.2002. the parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. the relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a civil suit for eviction on 12.8.1998 with the averments that the suit house no. h3, chitranjan marg, c-scheme, jaipur was let-out to the defendant in the year 1962 on monthly rent of rs. 265/-. present rate of rent is rs. 2000/- per month. the plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide requirement, material alterations, assigning, sub-letting or parting with the possession of some parts of the suit premises giving the details with regard to each of the grounds of eviction.3. the defendant in his written statement while admitting the tenancy denied all the grounds of eviction with pleas that the plaintiff is in possession of his own accommodation which is sufficient and the plaintiff either wants to let out this house on higher rent or wants to sell it out,4. on the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:1- d;k oknh dks oknxzlr ifjlj dh lo;a o viuhifru ds fuokl gsrq ;qfdr;qdr ,oa ln~hkfod vko';drk gs &oknh;2- d;k oknxzlr ifjlj ls izfroknh dksfu'dkflr u djus ij oknh dks izfroknh dks fu'dkflr djus ij gksus okyhdfbukbz rqyukred :i ls vf/kd dfbukbz gksxh &oknh;3- d;k oknxzlr ifjlj ds vkaf'kd fu'dklu lsoknh .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-13-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Raj229
ordersunil kumar garg, j.1. the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under article 226/227 of the constitution of india on 6-8-2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 7-7-2003 (annex. 6) passed by respondent no. 2 (superintending engineer, irrigation circle, hanumangarh junction) by which the superintending engineer (respondent no. 2) dismissed the appeal (annex. 3) filed by the petitioner against respondent no. 4 (madan lal) and upheld the order dated 3-1-2002 (annex. 2) passed by the respondent no. 3 (executive engineer, irrigation division-ii, hanumangarh) by which respondent no. 3 (executive engineer) allowed the application filed by respondent no. 4 (madan lal) and sanctioned another naka (drain) from the khasra no. 512/434 belonging to the petitioner for supplying water to his agricultural field situated in khasra no. 513/434 be quashed and set aside.2. the facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :(i) that the petitioner and respondent no. 4 (madan lal) both are neighbourers having adjacent agricultural fields to each other and doing farming on their field. the land bearing khasra no. 512/434 belongs to the petitioner and the land bearing khasra no. 513/ 434 belongs to the respondent no. 4 (madan lal).(ii) further case of the petitioner is that water to the field of respondent no. 4 (madan lal) is supplied from pakka drain (naka) made in the outskirts of petitioner's .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-08-2004
Reported in : 2004(175)ELT33(Raj); RLW2004(3)Raj1894; 2004(3)WLC1
anil dev singh, c.j.1. the dispute raised in the aforesaid petitions is with regard to the question whether hdpe/pp tapes are classifiable under heading no. 39.20 or heading no. 39.22 or heading no. 39.26 of section vii of the schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985. since the controversy in all these writ petitions is the same we may notice the facts of d.b. civil writ petition no. 3737 of 1989 with a view to understand the background in which these matters arise.2. the petitioner in d.b. civil writ petition no. 3737/1989 is m/s kay poly plast pvt. ltd. it is engaged in the business of manufacture of high density poly ethylene tapes (for short, 'hdpe tapes') and poly propylene tapes (for short, 'pp tapes'). it appears that the petitioner purchases hdpe/pp granules. in order to convert the hdpe/pp granules into hdpe/pp tapes, the granules are poured into a machine called extruder. in the extruder these granules are melted by heating. due to heat the granules polymerize into a molten mass. simultaneously with heating, mechanical pressure is applied by rotation of screw. by application of appropriate pressure a film or strip of desired gauge is obtained. this film or strip thus obtained is in a semi-finished condition. the film or strip is cooled with the help of air in the open and is slit into tapes with the help of blades fixed in a machine called godet machine. after silting, the tapes are stretched with the help of heat generated by heaters and by mechanical force. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-07-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1760; 2004(3)WLC231
sunil kumar garg, j.1. the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india on 25.11.2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the whole proceedings of no confidence motion dtd. 15.11.2003 (annex.5) taken against the petitioner be quashed and set aside.2. the facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:i) that the petitioner was elected as up sarpanch of gram panchayat 42 g.b., panchayat samiti anoopgarh tehsil sri vijaynagar, distt. sri ganganagar.ii) further case of the petitioner is that since elected sarpanch of the gram panchayat 42 g.b., namely, harjeet singh was in judicial custody, therefore, the state government vide its order dtd. 5.11.2003 (annex. 1) directed the respondent no. 5 (vikas adhikari, panchayat samiti, anoopgarh) to hand over the charge of the post of sarpanch to the petitioner till the release of sarpanch harjeet singh from the jail and thereafter the secretary of the gram panchayat 42 g.b. panchayat samiti anoopgarh handed over the charge of the post of sarpanch, gram panchayat 42 g.b. to the petitioner. the secretary of the gram panchayat 42 g.b. after handing over charge of the post of sarpanch, gram panchayat 42 g.b. to the petitioner wrote a letter dtd. nil (annex.2) to the vikas adhikari (respondent no. 5).iii) further case of the petitioner is that respondent decided to bring motion of no confidence against the petitioner and in this .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-06-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Raj196; 2006(1)CTLJ378(Raj); RLW2004(3)Raj1979; 2004(3)WLC711
a.c. goyal, j.1. this is first appeal by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1992 whereby learned additional district judge, kishangarhbas decreed the plaintiffs suit. the parties in this appeal shall be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. the plaintiff sh. kashiram (since deceased) filed a suit on 26-2-1986 for cancellation of a gift deed dated 20-6-1977 and for declaration that the defendant no. 1 sh. virendra singh is not the adopted son of the plaintiff with the averments that agricultural land measuring 15 beeghas 5 biswas as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint and agricultural land measuring 16 and half beeghas as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint is in khatedari and in possession of the plaintiff. the plaintiff is having three daughters -- all married and his wife. the defendants virendra singh and his father deen dayal are also residents of village bheekhawas. the defendant no. 2 sh. deen dayal is an advocate and on account of his contacts with the plaintiff, the plaintiff developed his confidence in defendant no. 2. both the defendants in conspiracy approached the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff is having about 32 beeghas of land and in case half of this land is transferred by way of will, the plaintiffs land would be saved from ceiling and after some time the will would got be cancelled. thus, taking the plaintiff in confidence the defendant no. 2 got his thumb impressions on a number of papers at mundawar on 20-6-1977 by playing .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-05-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Raj220; 2004(3)WLC409
1. this appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned single judge on 27-7-1999 whereby the learned single judge has held that the appellant was liable to pay ad valorem court-fee on the relief claimed by him which he has not disclosed in his appeal. therefore, three weeks time was given to appellant to disclose the difference of amount which he claims to be enhanced by way of filing the present appeal and disclose valuation of appeal on which the ad valorem court-fee is payable. thereafter, the office was to calculate ad valorem court-fee on the difference amount claimed by the appellant in the present appeal treating it the valuation of the appeal to be paid by the appellant.2. the case of the appellant is that he is entitled to prefer this appeal on a fixed court-fee of rs. 200/- as was paid by him in the suit filed by him in the trial court in terms of section 15 of the rajasthan court-fees act.3. the facts of the case are that the appellant filed the suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property claiming himself in joint-possession of such property. since, the plaintiff has valued his share in the property in excess of rs. 10,000/-, he paid rs. 200/- as court-fees in terms of sub-section (2) of section 35 of the rajasthan court-fees and suit valuation act, 1961. '4. as per preliminary decree, the plaintiffs share was determined as 2/9 in the property in question. this is not subject-matter of this appeal.5. at the time of passing the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-24-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj1; 2004(3)WLC723
garg, j.1. this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2000 passed by the learned addl. sessions judge no. 1, chittorgarh in sessions case no. 51/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under sections 302 and 323 ipc and sentenced in the following manner:- ----------------------------------------------------------------name of appellant convicted sentence awardedunder section----------------------------------------------------------------narayan 302 ipc imprisonment for life and topay a fine of rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo 3 months si.323 ipc one month si and to pay a fine of rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo si for 15 days.----------------------------------------------------------------2. the facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-on 24.8.1998 at about 4.15 pm, pw4 anchhi wife of madhoo (pw6) lodged an oral report ex.p/6 before pw21 keshar singh, who was at that time asi in police station gangrar district chittorgarh stating inter-alia that on that day she, her husband pw6 madhoo and her elder mother-in-law mohini wife of hazari (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) took food in the village kanti and after taking food, they (pw4 anchhi, pw6 madhoo and deceased) all were returning to their village indora and when they reached near the field of champa, her son ratan (pw5) met them and at that time, pvv5 ratan told them .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-16-2004
Reported in : 2005ACJ1650; RLW2004(3)Raj2003
prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the only point involved in this appeals that whether any interest can be granted over the compensation awarded under section 140 of the motor vehicle act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1988').3. in this case, the motor accident claims tribunal, hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') awarded compensation of rs. 50,000/- to the claimants on account of on fault liability under section 140 of the act of 1988. while doing so, the tribunal also awarded interest over the said compensation @ 8% per annum. according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the interest is not allowable in a case where any compensation awarded under section 140 of the act of 1988.4. i considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the interim award under section 140 as well as under section 171 of the act of 1988. it is true that in sub-section (2) of the section 140 of the act of 1988, it is mentioned that the amount of compensation, which shall be payable under sub-section (1) of the section 140 of the act of 1988 shall be a fixed sum of rs. 50.000/- in a ease of death of the victim and a fixed sum of rs. 25,000a in a case of permanent disablement of the injured in the accident. the words 'fixed sum' has direct connection only with the amount of compensation. meaning thereby the compensation shall not be more or less, then the rs.50,000/- on rs. 25,000/- as the case may be. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-15-2004
Reported in : (2004)189CTR(Raj)340; 269ITR16(Raj); 2004(3)WLC447
1. in this reference under section 256 of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), the tribunal has referred the following question for answer by this court:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the tribunal was justified that the assessee-trust was not liable to the charge of capital gains tax in view of the provisions of section 53 of the it act, 1961?'2. relevant asst. yr. is 1986-87, during which the assessee-trust sold residential property for rs. 1,37,000. the cost of acquisition thereof was rs. 80,000. the assessee claimed exemption of entire capital gains as per provisions of section 53 of the act. the ao, however, denied the exemption. according to him, exemption is available only to the assessee, whose status is 'individual' or 'hufs' and not to 'aops'. in appeal before the dy. cit(a), he confirmed the view taken by the ao. in further appeal before the tribunal, the tribunal has taken status of beneficiaries, who are having 'individual' status and the tribunal was of the view that when ultimate income goes in the hands of 'individual' beneficiaries, they are entitled to benefit of section 53 of the act.3. heard learned counsel for the parties.4. section 53 of the act reads as under :'53. notwithstanding anything contained in section 45, where in the case of an assessee being an individual, the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset other than short-term capital asset being buildings or land appurtenant .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-12-2004
Reported in : 53SCL133(Raj)
orders.k. keshote, j.1. shri a. kasliwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner ajanta soya limited, at the outset of his contentions, submitted that in the petition the prayer is not made for dissolution of the kasturi finlease & investment limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the transferor-company'). it is only a case of merger of the transferor-company in the petitioner ajanta soya limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the transferee-company').2.1 find from para no. 1 of the petition that the object of this petition is to obtain sanction of the court to the proposed scheme of amalgamation of the transferor-company with the transferee-company.3. this petition is filed under sections 391 and 394 of the companies act, 1956 by the petitioner transferee-company for grant of sanction of the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor-company in the transferee-company.4. the transferee-company filed earlier an application under sections 391 and 394 of the companies act, 1956 being company application no. 22/2003 for dispensing with the meeting of the preference shareholder of the transferee-company as the only preference shareholder of it is the transferor-company, which has already given its written consent/n.o.c. to the proposed amalgamation. in view of this fact, the court ordered that it is not necessary for convening of the meeting of the preference shareholder of the transferee-company and the prayer made for dispensing with the convening .....Tag this Judgment!