Rajasthan Court June 1982 Judgments
Ramnugar Cane and Sugar Company Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT6(Raj); 1982()WLN543
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. The three writ petitions listed above raise a common question of law, and may therefore be disposed of by a common judgment. The question of law requiring decision is whether the definition of 'value', as given in Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which makes the cost of packing of excisable goods, deliverable at the factory gate, except the cost of packing which is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee, includible in the value of such goods for purposes of levy of duty of excise thereon, is ultra vires the Constitution and also con- travenes Section 3 of the said Act. It has arisen in the following circumstances.2. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) which consolidated and amended the law relating to Central duties of excise and to salt came into force on February 28, 1944. Section 3 of the Act which makes provision for levy of duties of excise lays down that such...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)240
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated January 19, 1977 by which the appellants were held guilty for the offence under Section 332 of the Indain Penal Code and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment each.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under. On December 12, 1974 Constable Gopal Lal (P.W. 3) and Constable Ranglal (P.W. 5) went to arrest the five appellants in connection with some criminal case alleged to have been instituted against them at police station, Kotdi. The constables took Luna (P.W. 1) with them All the three then went to the house of the appellants. Constable Gopal Lai (P.W. 3) showed them the order for arrest. The appellants obstructed their arrest and gave a beating to the constables and Luna (P.W. 1). One 'danda' of constable Gopal Lal (P.W. 3) and bi-cycle of Luna (P.W. 1) are also said to have been snatched by the appellants. Gopal Lal (P.W. 3) sent ...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Nigam Vs. University of Jodhpur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj243; 1982()WLN384
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. 'A storm over a cup of tea', but though 'cup of tea' was over, the storm has assumed serious disastrous dimensions for the petitioner resulting in his suspension and inquiry. The academicians, either in their extraordinary pursuit of detachment and assertion of independence or caught in the trap of group rivalries, and group politics of the University, Instead of dividing and discussing the work load of the educational field, climbed over trying to scale political controversial issues under the garb and cover of unlimited rights of the teachers to criticise the political leaders and their policies. The pivot of debate in this writ petition is the validity of suspension of Prof. Nigam and inquiry against him on the allegation, that provoked by SriT.N. Agrawal or caught in a well knit trap, Prof. Shri Nigam used derogatorylanguage against the Prime Minister, Shrimati Indira Gandhi by verbal as well as written expression, that 'she is owl (ulloo)'.2. Shri Lekh Raj Me...
Tag this Judgment!JainaraIn S/O Rajuram Vs. Mst. Patasi W/O Jainarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-04-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)222
Guman Mal Lodha J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in criminal revision, by which the order of Munsif Judicial Magistrate, No. 2 Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 16/77 was upheld.2. Jainarain. the petitioner, is the husband and Mst. Patasi is wife of Jainarain.3. The claim of Patasi was that she was married to the petitioner and she was turned out from his house and she is umemployed and unable to maintain herself, therefore, she should be allowed maintenance. The petitioner denied the marriage and pleaded that the marriage was never consumated. The trial court awarded maintenance of Rs. 180/- per month after recording evidence of Patasi and after holding that income of the husband is about 700-800 per month. The petitioner did not lead any evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of non-petitioner, Patasi. Shri M. C. Bhoot, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has pointed out that the order by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›