Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: pawnee contract Court: rajasthan Page 1 of about 3,137 results (0.030 seconds)

Mar 12 1984 (HC)

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Firm Ballabh Das and Sons

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1984Raj107; 1984()WLN141

..... the firm having any right and the bank being subject to any corresponding obligation not to sell the goods. section 176. contract act confers a right on the bank as a pawnee, to sell the pledged goods after giving notice to the pawnor. it is admitted in the plaint that notice as contemplated ..... the plaint discloses no cause of action either for the grant of the relief of perpetual injunction against the bank or for the specific performance of any contract. section 38. specific relief act. 1963, lays down, inter alia, that perpetual injunction may be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing ..... caused by coercion and undue influence. the firm is then seeking to specifically enforce what counsel describes as a variation in the terms of the original contract. it is alleged, that in the course of mutual discussion between the parties and their solicitors on oct. 29, 1982, the representatives of the ..... the goods to the plaintiff at the rate of rs. 6350/- per metric tonne including import duty and miscellaneous charges', and from committing breach of contract in any other manner, ignoring the diversionary verbiage, snarl words and irrelevant 'facts which constitute the bulk of the 60 pages of the plaint, the ..... by section 176 contract act had already been served by the bank on the firm before the institution of this suit. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2011 (HC)

State Bank of IndiA. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

1. by way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner state bank of india has sought the following relief:i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned proclamation of sale dated 18.2.2011 (annexure-5) issued by the respondent no. 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and be further pleased to declare that the respondents are not having any authority to auction the properties in dispute as they do not belong to the assessee company but belong to the guarantors / owners who have created equitable mortgage in favour of the petitioner bank. ii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction, the communication dated 8.6.2010 issued by the respondent no.3 may also be declared as null and void as the same has been issued under misconception treating the properties to be of m/s. udai edible oil products limited. iii) or any other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the petitioner which this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.iv) cost of the litigation may kindly be granted to the petitioner.2. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner bank and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the petitioner bank sanctioned credit facility to m/s. kundan edible products limited (presently known as m/s. uday edible products limited) to the tune of 32.45 crores of rupees. the petitioner also gave one ad-hoc flc limit of 4.00 crores to the said company for a period of three months. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2011 (HC)

M/S Kaso Chemie IndiA. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commer.

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

1. this revision petition has been filed by the assessee under section 86 of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1994 being aggrieved by the order of learned tax board dated 16/8/2004 allowing the revenue's appeal and setting aside the order of first appellate authority dated 22/8/2000, whereby, the said first appellate authority deputy commissioner (appeals) jaipur allowed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the assessing authority under section 37 of the act and allowed the application for rectification dated 29/2/2000 filed by the assessee, which was rejected by order dated 13/3/2000 of assessing authority.2. the learned tax board in its impugned order dated 16/8/2004 has held that question raised by the assessee in his application for rectification under section 37 of the act that the commodity manufactured and sold by him namely;p.u.resin (polyurethane resin) was taxable only at the rate of 10% in residuary entry and not at the rate of 16% under entry no.91 of the notification dated 27/3/95, which prescribes rate of tax at the rate of 16% on all types of synthetic adhesives, is a question which falls outside the ambit and scope of section 37 of the said act and, therefore, the learned deputy commissioner (appeals) was not justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee as well as application under section 37 of the act. hence, this revision petition by the assessee before this court.3. learned counsel for the petitioner assessee, mr. devendra kumar urged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2011 (HC)

M/S Parasnath Trading Co. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner, Special Circle, Com ...

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

1. this revision petition has been filed under section 86 of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1994 by the assessee aggrieved by the order of the rajasthan tax board dated 30/8/2003,whereby, reversing the order of deputy commissioner (appeals) dated 21/5/1998, the learned tax board restored the penalty under section 77 (8) of the act amounting to rs.32,900/- on the petitioner assessee.2. section 77 (8) of the rst act, 1994 permits the assessing authority to impose penalty equal to the amount of five times of the tax livable on such goods which are found to be unaccounted for in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, after giving an opportunity to the assessee and after holding such further inquiry as it may consider necessary.3. the learned assessing authority by the impugned order passed on the same date of survey i.e. 22/11/1997 imposed the said penalty for the alleged sale of 160 bags of `urad dal' for rs.1,64,505.60 on the ground that in the stock register maintained by the assessee, this quantity of `urad' was not available with the assessee and, therefore, the same were `unaccounted for goods' and attract penalty under section 77(8) of the act.4. the first appellate authority deputy commissioner (appeals), however, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that the assessee produced the purchased bill of another registered dealer namely; m/s devilal satyanarain, dooni, bill no.186 dated 22/11/97, a copy whereof is produced at annex.4 on the record showing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2011 (HC)

Kailash C.Sharma and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

1. since bunch of petitions involve common question, at joint request, they are being finally decided at admission stage. controversy arises for consideration in regard to interpretation of amendment notification dt.25/07/1995 whereby explanation has been added for the post of laboratory technician ("lab. tech.") in column no.4 against entries at sl.no.4 under the head "group-a-vi {para medical cadre (medical)} of schedule-i appended to the rajasthan medical & health subordinate service rules, 1965 ("rules, 1965"). it is manifest from the record that since year 2002 onwards, 9-months' lab. tech. training was substituted by 2-years training and academic qualification was changed from "secondary" to senior secondary (science); and thereafter, all applicants holding minimum academic qualification of senior secondary (science), are holders of 2-yrs' lab. tech. training from the institutions recognized by the government and despite correspondence being made way back on 10/01/2003, the state government has not taken care to make necessary amendments in scheme of rules, 1965, so far. while examining the controversy, necessary facts being relevant for the purpose are that 312 posts of laboratory technician were initially advertised vide notification dt.06/10/2009 but it appears from the reply filed by the respondents that selections were held against 346 posts. pursuant to advertisement dt.06/10/2009, applications were submitted by all the petitioners holding certificates of 9-months .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2011 (HC)

Commercial Taxes Officer, AlwA. Vs. M/S J L C Electroment Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

1. this revision petition has been filed by the revenue against the order of learned tax board dated 29.11.2005 dismissing its appeal against the order of deputy commissioner (appeals) dated 26.10.2004.2. both the appellate authorities thus in favour of respondent-assessee held that penalty of rs.56,790/- could not be imposed on the respondent-assessee under section 78 (5) of the rst act, 1994 on account of declaration in form no. st-18a as per rule 53 of the rst rules, 1995 being found to be incomplete with respect to two commodities, namely, electrical control panel and v-belts, and said declaration being not available in respect of third commodity, electrical motors imported by the respondent-assessee from the supplier of gaziabad, within the state of u.p.; which were checked on 04.10.2000 while being transported in vehicle no. hr-38/d/4742 at border check post- shahjanhapur.3. learned counsel for the revenue, mr. achintya kaushik appearing for mr. r.b. mathur, relying upon the decision of hon'ble supreme court in the case of guljag industries v. cto reported in (2007) 7 scc 269 and state of rajasthan v. d.p. metals reported in (2002) 1 scc 279, submitted that learned tax board has erred in setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent-assessee under section 78 (5) of the act because the goods in question which were electrical goods covered by the relevant notification no. s. no. f.4 (1) fd/tax div/2000-297 dated 30.03.2000 (so no.374); and therefore, since st-18a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2011 (HC)

Kanhaiya Lal MeenA. Vs. the Managing Director, Sbbj and ors.

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

1. by way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:a) by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the notice 2.3.2010 annexure-1 and the notice dated 17.1.2011 annexure-3 passed by the respondents be quashed and set-aside.b) by issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, the respondent no. 1 be directed to exempt the petitioner from recovering the amount of illegal interest of rs. 8,63,000/- against the loan of rs. 5,76,000/- which has been calculated @ 13.5% per annum with compounded interest.c) that the compound interest of 13.5% per annum which is being charged by the bank from the petitioner be converted into simple interest of 6% per annum.d) the cost of writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.2. having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that in the year 2006-07, the petitioner took loan of rs. 5,03,000/- and rs. 73,000/- from state bank of bikaner and jaipur, branch anta, district baran for purchasing a tractor and for digging a tube-well. since the petitioner failed to repay the loan amount, notice dated 2.3.2010 was issued to the petitioner. subsequently, the respondent bank filed an application before the sdo, anta, district baran, who in-turn, issued the notice dated 17.1.2011 under section 4 of rajasthan agriculture credit operation (removal of difficulties) act, 1974 asking the petitioner to deposit an amount of rs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2011 (HC)

M/S Prince Stone Company. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer.

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

1. this revision petition has been filed against the order of the tax board dated 22.09.2005 whereby the tax board while dismissing the appeal of the asseessee upheld the order of the deputy commissioner (appeals), kota dated 02.09.2003 for the assessment year 1991-92. the appellate authorities have concurrently held against the petitioner-assessee that on the sale of hydraulic excavator by the petitioner-assessee, a registered dealer of stones, was taxable in the hands of the petitioner-assessee, and in the absence of the non-disclosure of such transaction in the books of accounts and returns filed by the assessee under the sales tax law, the assessing authority imposed tax, interest and penalty under section 16 (1) (i) of the rst act, 1994 on the assessee by the impugned assessment order dated 04.10.1999.2. being aggrieved by the said order of learned tax board, the petitioner-assessee is before this court by way of present revision petition.3. learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee, mr. dinesh kumar, submitted that the petitioner-assessee had closed-down the business of sale of stones and the said hydraulic excavator was a capital asset of the said assessee, which was sold to its sister concern, namely, m/s manjeet stone company, kota for a sum of rs.23 lacs for which the amount was realized by cheque; and therefore, the same was not taxable in the hands of the assessee. he further submitted that since the transaction was duly recorded in the books of accounts of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2011 (HC)

Jafar Mohammad. Vs. SirajuddIn and ors.

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

1. by way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:(i) by issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 27.3.2006 (annexure-3) passed by respondent no. 6 municipal board, sambharlake and order dated 23.3.2007 (annexure-4) passed by respondent no. 7 additional divisional commissioner, jaipur be quashed and set-aside.(ii) any other appropriate relief which this hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. (iii) the cost of this writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.2. contextual facts of the case depict that the property situated at chhota bajar, sambharlake was entered in the name of khudabux. the respondents no. 1 and 2, who are the legal representatives of khudabux, submitted an application to the nagar palika, sambharlake for entering their name in place of khudabux. the petitioner filed the objections before the nagar palika, sambharlake. executive officer, nagar palika, sambharlake, directed the parties to get the right of ownership decided from civil court. thereafter sirajuddin deposited the house tax of the property-in-dispute with nagar palika, sambharlake, which was accepted by the executive officer. being aggrieved by the order of the executive officer, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the additional divisional commissioner, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.3.2007.3. heard learned counsel .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2011 (HC)

Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-i, Commercial Taxes Deptt. Jaip ...

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

1. these two revision petitions have been filed by the revenue being aggrieved by the order of learned tax board dated 23.04.2002 rejecting the revenue's appeals against the assessee.2. learned tax board by its impugned order upholding the order of first appellate authority dated 03.07.2000 held in favour of assessee, a registered dealer of computer and computer accessories and their parts, that goods in question, namely, cvt (constant voltage transformer) and ups (uninterruptible power source) sold by the assessee are taxable @ 4% as accessories of computer and not under residuary entry @ 10% in the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. the assessing authority had imposed 6% difference tax on these goods, namely, cvt(s) and ups in the hands of the assessee by the impugned assessment orders, against which both the appeals by the higher appellate forum were decided in favour of assessee. hence, these revision petitions at the instance of revenue.3. learned tax board in its impugned order has relied upon two supreme court's decisions in favour of assessee to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion viz. (i) union carbide india v. state of andhra pradesh reported in (1995) 98 stc 1 (sc), and (ii) mehra brothers v. joint commercial officer, madras reported in (1991) 80 stc 233 (sc) = (1991) 1 scc 514.4. the question of law, which arises for consideration by this court is as to whether these two commodities cvt and ups were rightly held by the appellate authorities below as taxable @ 4% .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //