Rajasthan Court November 1978 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohd. Siddiq Vs. Ranganath Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN592
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. These three criminal appeals from acquittal, which were filed by the complainant, Mohd. Siddiq, with the leave of this Court, are directed against three different orders, dated, July 13, 1972, passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Beawar, whereby the accused persons in the three complaints filed by Mohd. Siddiq were acquitted by the learned Magistrate of the offence punishable under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Act). The circumstances giving rise to these appeals may be stated as follows:2. Disputes arose between Bijai Cotton Mills Limited, Bijainagar, and its workmen in respect of claims of the latter for retrenchment compensation and other dues payable under the Act. From time to times the Government of Rajasthan referred two of these disputes to the Labour Court, Jaipur and one to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur for adjudication. The Labour Court made two awards, on July 9, 1965, and October 13, 1965...
Dhabai Sua Lal Yadav Vs. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj130
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This special appeal arises from the judgment of the single bench in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 726 of 1978, dated 24-10-1978 by which the writ petition has been dismissed. Mr. Sharma has prayed that in this special appeal the petitioner-appellant may be allowed the following reliefs:--'(a) declaring the following provisions of laws to be void ab initio, or ultra vires. (i) Sections 4, 8, 8A, 9, 11, 33(3) and 146 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to the extent they are contrary and inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 13, 14, 16, 19(a), 19(g), Sub-clause (6) of Article 19, 31C Article 39 read 'with Article 39 (sic) Articles 102, 103, 105, 122 and the preamble of the Constitution as argued above;(ii) Sections 24 and 25 of the Advocates Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary and inconsistent with Article 19(g), Sub-clause (6) of Article 19, Article 29, Article 31C Article 39 read with Article 37 of the Constitution and Sections 7 and 29 of the Po...
Hemraj Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr. (No. 2)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR744(Raj)
M.L. Joshi, Actg. C.J. 1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the annuity deposit is not recoverable from the petitioner in view of the subsequent amendment made by the Finance Act, No. 13 of 1966, passed on May 13, 1966. The submission, of the learned counsel is that after the amendment the power to make recovery no moresurvives in the department in view of the amendment of Section 156 and omission of Sections 280K, 280R and 280T with effect from April 1, 1967. 2. The argument of the learned counsel is that the amendment is rather of a retrospective character and no recovery can be made after the coming into force of the amendments introduced by the Finance Act of 1966. Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act cannot be attracted while interpreting the above provisions. We are afraid the contention raised by the learned counsel is not correct. The point raised before us is squarely covered by J.K.K. Angappan v. ITO : ...
P.C. Pande Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN435
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of Habeas Corpus and for issue of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing or setting aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 13-9-1977 passed by the General Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court). At present the petitioner is undergoing sentence in the Central Jail, Jodhpur.2. The material facts may briefly be stated as follows : The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector (Clerk) in 13 BN, BSF No. 671870641 attached with of S.T.O. Jodhpur in the year 1975 and was working as Accountant-cum-Cashier in that year The petitioner was prosecuted for misappropriating property under Section 30 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (47 of 1968)(hereinafter referred to as the Act'), during the year 1975-76. He was convicted by the General Security Force Court and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. It was farther ordered that the petitioner was to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›