Advanced Search Results

Bhag Chand Vs. Ganpat and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Sections 140

Reported in : 2002(4)WLC460; 2002(5)WLN485

Advocate for Appellant : Ravi Bhansali, Adv.

Mathur, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the claimant in a motor accident claim case aggrieved of the order of the Motor Accident Claims...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35H(1); Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 8(1), 57F and 57J; Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Reported in : 2002(142)ELT289(Raj); 2003(1)WLN332

Advocate for Appellant : Ravi Bhansali, Adv.

ORDERN.N. Mathur, JJ. - 1. This reference petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is at the instance of the department seeking reference of the following question of law arising from the order...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Hiraram and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Motor VehiclesCivil

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173

Reported in : II(2003)ACC605; 2005ACJ1339; AIR2003Raj188; 2003(2)WLC669; 2003(1)WLN495

Advocate for Appellant : Ravi Bhansali, Adv.

B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This Misc. Appeal has been preferred against the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called as the Tribunal) Merta dated 10-12-98 by which a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-along with interest...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : ExciseBanking

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 11B, 35H and 35H(1)

Reported in : 2005(183)ELT12(Raj)

Advocate for Appellant : Ravi Bhansali, Adv.

1. This is an application under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 at the instance of Union of India seeking reference as follows :'Whether the duty of excise encashed from bank guarantee can be...

Akshaya Kumar Derashri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur

Subject : Service

Advocate for Appellant : Shri. M.R. Singhvi

1. In the field of service jurisprudence, the disputes relating to seniority have acquired notoriety. In the present case, the dispute travelled more than once upto the Apex Court. The clear mandate dated 22.11.1986 of the...

Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Sultan Mohd.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ691Raj; 2000(2)WLC22

N.N. Mathur, J.1. Admit.2. Mr. M.R. Singhvi waives service of notice on respondent in each appeal.3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all these special appeals are being taken up for final...

State of Rajasthan Vs. Bheru Lal

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Food adulterationCriminal

Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)357

S M Jain, J.1. By the Judgment dt. June 21, 1979, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (here in...

Sajjan Singh Bhati Vs. State of Raj. and Ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Subject : MRTP

1 6 D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.26/2013 Sajjan Singh Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :::19. h November 2014 HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Mr.S.P.Sharma for...

Vikram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : ConstitutionCivil

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226

Reported in : AIR1998Raj325; 1999(1)WLC235

Advocate for Appellant : L.R. Kalla, Adv.

ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant case is an example which reveals the magnitude to which a litigant can abuse the process of the Court. The petitioner has entered into an agreement (contract) with the respondent No....

Hasina Bano Vs. Alam Noor

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Family

Reported in : AIR2007Raj49; RLW2007(1)Raj566

ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. The fight over the payment of 'mehar' (dower) has brought the parties before this Court. The appellant-wife has demanded the payment of 'mehar' from the non-petitioner-husband; the latter has denied his liability to...