Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC202; 1996(2)WLN161
S.C. Mital, J.1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default to undergo two years RI on each count by judgment dt. 21.10.95 passed by learned Special Judge NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur. The appellant Radheyshyam has been further convicted under Section 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default to under two years R.I. All the substantive sentences against the appellants shall run concurrently.2. SHO Khanda Falsa Shri Ashwani Kumar received source information on 9.12.94 that Hazi Saradeen resident of Kundal will reach from Pakistan after taking heroine from Phalodi to Soorsagar in a commander Jeep No. RJ-19 C-3934. The information was sent to CO. Shri Shorabh Srivastava who come to the police station and directed Devaram Constable to summon two motbirs and to re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ1029Raj; 1997(1)WLC193; 1996(2)WLN150
Parihar, J.1. The appellants have challenged the order dated July 4, 1996, passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, filed by the appellants. The husband of the appellant Smt. Kuntha Devi, was serving in the Irrigation Department and died while in service on December 24, 1976. The case of the appellant is that at the time of death of her husband, they had only one daughter who was married. After death of her husband, the real brother of appellant No. 1 started living with her and thereafter, on May 6, 1991, the appellant No. 1 adopted her real brother as her son. Further, the case of the appellant is that at the time of the death of her husband her brother, now adopted son, was a minor and after registering the adoption deed on May 6, 1991 her adopted son applied for the employment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975'). However, when the application was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(2)WLC592; 1996(2)WLN157
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings initiated by a learned Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C.2. Brief facts borne out from the perusal of record which are necessary for just decision of the present case are that the petitioners alleged themselves to be in exclusive possession of House No. 355 in ward No. l, Kundpara, Jaisalmer alleging themselves to be the owners. It is alleged that petitioners No. l let out this house on 3.3.92 to Sub-Divisional Officer (Sheep and Wool), C.A.D., Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Jaisalmer and a rent deed was also executed by the said officer. The house in question was given on rent for a period of two years which expired on 3.3.95. It is evident from Anx. 2 as well as Anx. 3 that after expiry of period of tenancy i.e. on 3.3.95, the house in question is in possession of the petitioners.3. Indisputably, respondent No. 3, in the capacity of power of attorney holder of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC425; 1996(2)WLN154
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the notice for demand based on re-assessment of royalty issued by Assistant Mining Engineer, Banswara, Anx. 8 to the writ petition seeking a relief to quash the same on the ground inter-alia that impugned notice of demand is exfacie invalid according to Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1986) and also against the principle of natural justice and fair play.2. The facts leading up to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for mineral marble on 26.8.1982 and he is carrying on mining operation till today.3. It is averred in the writ petition that the royalty was assessed for the assessment periods from 26.8.87 to 25.8.88 and from 26.8.88 to 25.8.89 on 6.2.90, copies whereof of both assessments are filed alongwith the writ petition and are marked as Anx. 1 and Anx. 2 respectively.4. In pursuance of asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1997Raj78
Verma, J.1. Both the writ petitions involve similar facts and law, challenging the vires of various Sections of the Copy Right Act, therefore, are being decided together.2. The facts are similar, therefore, the facts are being taken from D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 660/89 (Girish Chandani v. Union of India). The petitioner is carrying the business of keeping library of Video Cassettes, T.Vs. and V. C. Rs. for letting them on hire to the customers for viewing them at their homes. The petitioner submits that even though he is keeping Video Cassettes which are duly certified, films of which the copy rights are sold by the producers to the copy right holders and were prepared after obtaining necessary licence and consent from the owner of the copy right and he purchases video cassettes from the market which are again supplied by either the producer or the copy right holder or the persons having necessary licence and consent from the owner of the copy right holders etc., he still apprehen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1997Raj55; 1997(1)WLC473; 1996(2)WLN143
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking reliefs to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondentsto include lime stone discovered in the leased area granted to him on 9-3-76, Anx. 1 to the writ petition, and also for quashing the order Anx. 5 dated 26-2-87 passed by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as Act No. 67 of 1957) read with Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1960) directing him to apply separately for grant of mining lease for lime stone (major mineral) as envisaged under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1960.2. The relevant facts in brief, which have given rise to this writ petition, are that the petitioner was granted mining lease on 9-3-76 for extracting Calcite minerals for a period of twenty years over an area of 129.50 hectares in village Perwa, Pargana Rewdar, District Siroh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003(159)ELT125(Raj)
M.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner has claimed the refund of the excise duty wrongly recovered under Item No. 26-AA(ia) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act No. 1 of 1944')2. The petitioner is a public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act. It manufactures iron and steel products which were excisable goods.3. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), issued Notification No. 306/63, Central Excise, dated 30th of November, 1963, which was subsequently amended in 1965 and then in 1968. The Government vide these notifications exempted the following items from payment of whole of the excise duty leviable on such products :-'(i) fresh unused re-rolling scrap on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid.(ii) Semi-finished steel including blooms, billets, slabs, sheets bars, tin and hoe bars on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid.(iii) Old and used re-rollable scrap;(iv) ingots, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(2)WLN129
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The aforesaid revisions have been directed against the order dated 8.3.1996, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar, reverising the order dated 14.2.1996, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Alwar, and allowing the application of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the auction for grant of royalty collection contract took place on 30.1.1996. The plaintiff-non-petitioner Ramanand gave a bid of Rs. 3,50,000/- which was the highest. The Mining Engineer accepted the same and asked the plaintiff-non-petitioner to deposit 25% of the bid amount and security amount. The amount was not deposited by the plaintiff-non-petitioner on the same day. On 31.1.1996, the plaintiff- non-petitioner, on the opening of the office, submitted an application to the Mining Engineer for depositing the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- but the Mining Engineer refused to deposit the amount. Under such circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(2)WLC737; 1996(2)WLN127
Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this misc. application, it has been prayed that the condition in column 7 of Item No. 6 of Schedule-I of Rules, 1954 be declared ultra vires. It has been further prayed that Government be directed to relax six months more experience in case of the petitioner to promote him on the post of Executive Engineer from the date his Juniors have been promoted.2. In 1957, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department, Govt. of Rajasthan. He was confirmed on that post on 21.6.1963 w.e.f. 21.2.60 and then promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) Irrigation in 1978. Vide Ann.9 dated 20.1.96, his junior Lal Singh has been promoted and petitioner was superseded on the ground that he has not completed two years' continuous experience of non-field post. That amendment was introduced in the year 1989.3. Mr. Singhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had only 10 months experience of nonfield post, but the posting is in the hand of Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(2)WLN134
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.7.95 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused-appellants Krishan and Rani Devi for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/-each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment; but acquitted accused Ram Rakh of all the charges.2. Appellants Krishan, Smt. Rani Devi and Ram Rakh were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh for committing the murder of Smt. Radha W/o accused Krishan in the Rohi of village Jorawarpur by sprinkling kerosene over her and thereafter litting the fire when she was sleeping in the house in the night intervening 2/3 February, 1988. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Smt. Radha, 15 to 20 days before the date of the incident, had come to her in-laws house from her parental house. In the night...
Tag this Judgment!