Rajasthan Court December 1996 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.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Smt. Indra Kala
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas348(Raj)
M.A.A. Khan, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the pendency of Criminal Case No. 78 of 1995 under Section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), against the petitioners in the court of the Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), and has its registered office in Punjab and corporate office at Delhi. On May 7, 1994, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner company, its managing director, Sh. Parmindar Singh, and three others in the Special Court of the Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, alleging therein that she had purchased 200 shares of the petitioner company on March 18, 1987, from Smt. Tripat Kaur, Smt. Lilawati and Sh. B. A. Ramchandani (who all were made co-accused but were not summoned as such) through Sh. Ghanshyam Dass Seth, a member ...
Devendera Kumar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: II(1997)DMC311; 1997(1)WLC513; 1996(2)WLN530
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for non-petitioner No. 1. No body has appeared for non-petitioners No. 2 and 3. The facts may be summarised as below :2. On 25th October, 1989 Shri Sheokaran lodged the FIR at the Police Station, Sangaria alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A and 406, IPC. On the basis of the information given by Sheokaran, the Police registered a Criminal Case No. 284 of 1989 against the petitioner and the members of his family. After investigation the Police submitted a final report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. and stated therein that no offence was proved against the accused persons. The order dated 4.4.1991 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria shows that on 3.11.1990 Sheokaran filed a protest petition in which he stated that a compromise was effected and that after the alleged compromise, Devendra Kumar obtained a house and started living with Smt. Geeta and ...
Chatar Lal Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC560; 1996(2)WLN322
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the order impugned dated 3.10.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand rejecting the application of the petitioner for leave to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- deposited in his Fixed Deposits Account No. 19368 in the Bank of Baroda, Nathdwara District Rajsamand for purposes of solemnising marriage of his graduate daughter Miss Deepika aged about 22 years with Anil son of Shri Onkar Lal Chaplot resident of Fateh Nagar Sanward District Udaipur scheduled to be solemnised on 12.12.1996.3. The impugned dated 3.10.96 has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the instant revision without disclosing the provisions either under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules framed thereunder.4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist urged before me that the District Judge who functions as a Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not only within the administrative control of the High Court but also subordinate to it under Section 115, C...
Bhola Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC551; 1996(2)WLN533
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed in revision by the Director General in purported of his powers under Rule 49 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1968 hereinafter offered to as 'the Rules'.2. The petitioner was removed from service for proved misconduct and was penalised with stoppage of one increment. This penalty was confirmed in appeal. The petitioner, therefore, filed a revision before the Director General as per the provisions of the Rules.3. While considering the revision, the Director General thought necessary to suo moto revise the order of punishment. He therefore, issued a notice asking the petitioner to show cause why the penalty should not be enhanced. This suo moto power can be exercised within a period of one year from the date of the order.4. Assailing the order, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suo moto power under Rule 49 cannot be invoked in a case where revision of an a...
Chandra Filling Service Vs. Ramprasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN320
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant Shri A.L. Chopra at length. I have been taken through the judgments given by both the courts below with the assistance of Mr. Chopra.2. Instant Second Appeal is concluded by concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below and no substantial question of law is involved.3. It is well to remember that interference with the concurrent finding of fact by this Court under Section 100 CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. There are inherent limitation for interference in concurrent finding of facts recorded by courts below. In such cases where both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact, this Court is not expected to reappreciate the evidence just to replace the concurrent finding of facts recorded by two courts below.4. In the present case the learned lower appellate court has fairly appreciated the evidence on record adduced by both the parties and has confirmed the conclusion of t...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Singhal Paints Limited
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1996
Reported in: (1998)111STC27Tribunal
1. This application for revision filed under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 ("RST Act", for short) before the Rajasthan High Court which stood transferred to this Tribunal with the coming into force of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 is directed against the judgment dated April 12, 1993 in Appeal No.96/92/ST/Jaipur of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (as the Rajasthan Tax Board was then known and hereinafter referred to as "the Board") by which the judgment dated March 31, 1992 in Appeal No.620/RST/JPA/DC-3/91-92 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-III partially accepting the appeal of the present respondent against assessment order dated October 29, 1991 by which the petitioner had ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of tax collected by the respondent on the component of discount and ordering instead for its realisation with interest and thereafter for its refund was set aside.2. The relevant facts are that the respondent (assessee-firm) gives to its ...
Rani Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj208
P.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 19-2-1991 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Camp at Jodhpur [for short 'the Tribunal'] whereby the learned Tribunal has declined to allow the interest claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 15867/- @ Rs. 13.50% from 19-3-1988 to 24-7-1989 and further from the date of preferring claim petition till the payment is made, on the ground that if amounts to damages over damages not warranted by clause (d) of Section 78 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 [for short 'the Act'].2. The brief facts relating to this appeal are that a consignment of 180 bags of sugar was despatched to the applicant by M/s. Hindustan Sugar Mills, Golagokarannath under Railway Receipt No. 757965 dated 7-3-1988 under the railway risk to be delivered to the appellant at Rani. The railway receipt was consigned to self and it was sent through Bank to the appellant who retired...
Jaipur PolyspIn Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC435; 1996(2)WLN317
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and also perused the relevant documents placed on the record as well as the impugned order dated 25.4.94 (Annexure-1) which has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the adjudication of the dispute by the appropriate Government the management of the petitioner-Company had given the compensation in terms of the order passed by the Workmen's Claims Commissioner to respondent No. 2 workman and thereafter a dispute was raised by the said workman for his re-instatement in services of the petitioner company. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer by the appropriate authority and on account of the failure of the conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, the State Government declined reference of the dispute to the Labour Court for the reason that the Workman had no justification to raise the dispute for adjudication on the ...
Bhandari Das Vs. Smt. Sushila and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC607; 1996(2)WLN319
R.R. Yadav, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed beyond limitation of 1292 days. I do not consider it proper to issue notice of the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for such inordinate delay.2. An affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay reveals that learned Counsel Shri Kuldeep Sharma assured to the appellant to inform him whenever it is required. It is also alleged that Shri Kuldeep Sharma learned Counsel informed him that he is not responsible for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act but such compensation is to be paid by the Insurance Company. Learned Counsel Shri Kuldeep Sharma also assured the appellant that he is not required to contact him on each and every date. It is pertinent to note that in support of aforesaid averments no affidavit of Shri Kuldeep Sharma is filed.3. The aforesaid assertions made in the affidavit do not inspire my confidence. No counsel can afford to advise his client not to attend the Court on each and e...
Jagdish Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN542
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. All the four appeals filed by Jagdish Chandra, Shankerpuri, Bhima and Mahendra Kumar arise from the same judgment dated 22nd July, 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases. Raj Samand in Sessions Case No. 30/92 State v. Shankerpuri and Ors. It is therefore, just and proper that all the four appeals should be decided together by a common judgment.2. In Sessions Case No. 30/92 State v. Shankerpuri and Ors., Shankerpuri was charged under Section 8 read with 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act Mahendra Kumar was charged under Section 8 read with 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, Jadgish Chandra was charged under Section 18 read with 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Bhima was charged under Section 8 read with 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge therefore, they were tried by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Rajasamand. After conducting trial the learned Special Judge convicted appellant Shankerpuri under Section 8 read ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »