Rajasthan Court October 1988 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.
D.C.M. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1988
Reported in: 1989(19)ECC117; 1988(2)WLN469
ORDER1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks refund of the Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 20,39,139.48 along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit or recovery in compliance of the Order of the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi dated 21-6-1984 (Annx. 3). 2. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Customs, Kota by his order dated 2-1-1980 created a demand against the petitioner holding that the tyre cord is classified under T.I. 68 and not under T.I. 18 and appropriate duty under the said Central Excise Tariff was ordered to be deposited. In appeal, the petitioner was successful and the view of the Assistant Collector was set aside and the tyre cord was classified under the tariff item No. 18. Under the orders of the Assistant Collector, the petitioner had paid the excise duty. The petitioner is now entitled to the refund of the amount of excise duty deposited or recovered from the petitioner for which the petitioner [was] held to be not...
Jit Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)258
1. These writ petitions raise a common question of law, so, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the notices issued to the petitioners under Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust, 1959 (here in after referred to 'as the Act'). The proceedings have been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the notices under Sub-section (2) of Section 52 have not been served on the petitioners The notices are said to have been served by affixure. Such service is no service in the eye of law. No reasons have been assigned for affixure off the notices nor there is any return to the notice to the effect as to in what circumstances, the notices have affixed. In the absence of such necessary requirements, the service of notices on the petitioners is invalid and is no service in the eye of law.3. We have perused the notices and we find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. ...
Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)234a
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The amount said to have been embezzled by the petitioner has been deposited by him. The original four receipts in this respect for Rs. 18,151/- have been shown to me. Out of this some money was recovered from his pay. Considering the fact that the amount has been recovered and the petitioner shall face the trial, when it comes up then he can be raleased on anticipatory bail.2. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur in FIR No. 418/88, is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Rajendra Kumar Sharma be released on bail, provided he furnishes a persona1 bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to his satisfaction on the following conditions:[a] that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;[b] that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquinted with facts...
Mohan Lal Agrawal Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)536
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Against the implied refusal to grant renewal of the mining lease of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 before the Central Government. The Central Government under its order Annexure-5 dated February 19, 1988 took a view that as the mining lease of the petitioner expired on March 25, 1985 and the application for renewal was filed on December 22, 1984, and the same has not yet been considered by the State Government, the petitioner should seek his redress from the State Government.2. It is not disputed that after the initial grant of a mining lease for mineral lime stone the petitioner was granted two renewals and the third renewal of the mining lease of the petitioner became due on March 26, 1985. The petitioner who should have applied for renewal before six months of the expiry of the mining lease could not make an application for renewal before six months as af...
Prem Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)236
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This is second bail application by the petitioner. Now the investigation is over and challan has been filed and he has filed this bail application. He has challan papers which have been looked into but the case diary of the case has not been received. Persons of both the sides have received injuries and one injury of both the sides has been assigned dangerous to life. This petitioner himself has received injuries. The incident occurred on a minor matter about the grazing of cattle in the field. The petitioner has been in custody for about two months. Looking of the case and counter case, and the fact that the investigation is, over, the petitioner can be released on bail on appropriate conditions.2. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail on a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- five thousand and with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction the trial court with the stipulation to appear before tha...
D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT3(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks refund of the Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 20,39,139.40 along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit or recovery in compliance of the order of the Collec tor (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi dated 21.6.84 (Annx. 3).2. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Customs, Kota by his order dated 2.1.1980 created a demand against the petitioner holding that the Tyre Cord is classified under T.I. 68 and not under T.I. 18 and appropriate duty under the said Central Excise Tariff was ordered to be deposited. In appeal, the petitioner was successful and the view of the Assistant Collector was set aside and the Tyre Cord was classified under the Tariff Item No. 18. Under the orders of the Assistant Collector, the petitioner had paid the Excise Duty. The petitioner is now entitled to the refund of the amount of Excise Duty deposited or recovered from the petitioner for which the petitioner is held to be ...
Vimla Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)213
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. where by the petitioner has prayed for calling the entire record pertaining to the case end to quash the investigation being carried on by police in persuance of the FIR No. 83/88 of Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur and to further direct that all actions taken so far including sealing of the shops and the premises be set aside.2. Facts giving rise to this petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are that one Smt. Banarasi Devi wife of Shri Shree Niwas Agarwal filed a complaint through her husband, a Tax-practitioner, against her younger son, Rajendra Kumar, his wife Smt. Vimla and one unknown person for offences under Sections 406, 409, 426, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The allegations levelled in the complaint are that Shree Niwas, who is alto power of attorney bolder of his wife Smt. Banarasi Devi, has two sons-Ram Babu a...
Nand Lal and 8 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN175
Pana Chand Jain, J.1. All these writ petitions involved similar questions of facts and law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the order dated 10th May, 1988 (Annex-12) whereby their services were terminated with immediate effect by respondent No. 2.3. In all these writ petitions, the case of the petitioners is that they came to be appointed after due selection on regular basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-10-850-15-865 on the post of Ward Boy/Class-IV employee by non-petitioner No. 2 under the order dated 29th April. 1988. The petitioners have further averred that their selection was made in a proper manner and they were duly interviewed. After their selection they joined their duties. The grievance of the petitioners is that their services have been illegally terminated vide order dated 10th May, 1988 passed by respondent No. 2. Their contention is that the order of termination dated 10th May, 1988...
Nanag Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN665
P.C. Jain, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 8th October, 1974 (Annx. 9), whereby the petitioner's services were terminated and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22nd August, 1985 (Annx. 13) by which the order of removal was confirmed.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the, petitioner was holding the post of Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force and was posted at Phulera junction in March 1972. At that time, a memorandum dated 31st March, 1972, a charge-sheet was served upon him and an enquiry was proposed to be held under Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (for short, the Rules). The charge against the petitioner was that he remained gross negligent in the discharge of his duty resulting in theft of 6 cases of rum valued at Rs. 500/- which took place while he was on duty in Dn. Yard PL from 20 Hrs. of 26th February, 1972 to 8 Hrs. of 27th February, 1972 from Wagon No. WR 22450 stabled on line No. 33 at PL Yard. wh...
Jweller Association Vs. Presiding Officer Appointed Under Section 28-a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN669
P.C. Jain, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction for quashing the order of respondent No. 1, dated 17th November, 1987, where by he reinstated respondent No. 2 and quashed the order of dismissal, dated 11th October, 1973 of respondent No. 2 Devi Singh from the services of Jwellers Association, Jaipur.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is association and was established for the welfare of the members dealing in genuine jewellery to guide them for import and export business of jewellery. The petitioner association is registered under the Rajasthan Non-trading Companies Act. Respondent No. 2 Devi Singh was employed in the petitioner association as Class IV employee on 27th June, 1975. A charge-sheet was given to him on 23rd July, 1982. After receiving the charge-sheet, Devi Singh respondent No. 2, filed his reply. As the reply was found to be not satisfactory, the management of the petitioner associat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »