Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1810
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 13.09.2006 and consequential benefits flowing therefrom.2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Gr.III by the respondent. The petitioner and other persons while in Govt, service, alleged to have involved in commission of crime punishable under various sections of IPC causing murder of one Madanlal. A crime report came to be lodged against the petitioner and others on 31.3.1973. He was put to trial for the offences under Sections 147,302/149,307/149,323/149, 324/149,153-A/149 and 148 IPC along with other co-accused in Sessions Case No. 25/74. The petitioner was arrested by the police and therefore, the respondent employer placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 12.09.1973. After holding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1645
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Both the aforesaid criminal appeal and criminal revision arises out of and pertain to judgment dated 13th April, 1993 rendered by Sessions Judge, Tonk whereby, the accused-respondent Rambabu was not found guilty and thus acquitted in the offence under Section 377 of IPC, hence, they are being heard and decided by this common judgment.2. The prosecution case is woven like this:That the accused Rambabu Soni was employed as a teacher in Government Primary School, Kiwada where the victim Mahaveer Prasad was prosecuting his studies. It is alleged that on 3rd May, 1986 the accused Rambabu Soni called Mahaveer Prasad under the pretension to send for cigarettes. It is further alleged that the accused Rambabu first got his legs massaged by Mahaveer Prasad and thereafter, had carnal intercourse with him against the order of nature, when the complainant came to know about this incident, he complained it to the Headmaster of school. It is also stated that the villagers too, c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2009Raj57; RLW2009(2)Raj1760
ORDERDalip Singh, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 17-5-2007 by which the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the defendant non petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC.2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-tenant in the year 1993. The defendant was served. Written statement was filed by the defendant issues were framed. After the plaintiffs evidence was closed the case was fixed for the defendant's evidence. On the date when the case was fixed for the defendant's evidence i.e. 16-11-2004 the defendant sought time to produce the evidence which was allowed on costs of Rs. 200/- and the case was fixed for 2-12-2004. On 2-12-2004 the defendant was not present and again time was sought on behalf of the defendant and the case was adjourned despite the fact that the costs of Rs. 200/- which have been imposed vide order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2009Raj66; RLW2009(3)Raj2128; 2009(1)WLN146
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. In one unfortunate accident, 6 family members of appellant died and, therefore, 6 claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which was decided by common award dated 2nd June, 2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Udaipur Headquarter Salumbar). The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,02,000/- in total on account of death of 6 persons out of whom 4 were minor sons and daughters of the appellant, one was wife of the appellant and one was the mother of the appellant. The appellant, therefore, has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11th July, 1994 deceased Smt. Vimla, Miss Parisha, Miss Hetal, Master Hitesh, Master Nilesh and Smt. Ganga were travelling in Jeep No. GH-9B-2234 along with the appellant. The jeep owner Ashok Kumar was driving the jeep and as per the allegation of the claimant, Ashok Kumar h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj2189
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 85/1999, Whereby he has allowed an application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C.2. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report had been registered on 24.02.1999, at Police Chaksu, District Jaipur (Rural) for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed for the offences under Section 419 and 420 I.P.C. Subsequently, charges were also framed against the accused-petitioner, for the aforementioned offences.3. After the conclusion of the trial, the final arguments came to be heard by the trial court on 29.09.1999 Thereafter, the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 05.10.1999. It was at that stage that the prosecution had filed an application under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj2181
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. As both these criminal misc. petitions arise out of the complaint No. 197/98 filed by the respondent and the question involved in them are identical, therefore, they are being decided by a common order.2. The petitioners, in these petitions, have challenged the order dated 02.04.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer, whereby he has rejected the objections raised by the accused-petitioners against the order of taking cognizance. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioners had filed revision petitions before the learned Sessions Judge, which came to be decided by the Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Ajmer, whereby he had dismissed the same and affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate.3. Broadly speaking, the facts of the case are that a private complaint came to be lodged by Sunil Mittal, Director, Mittal Capital India Ltd. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class No. 1, Ajmer, against seven persons including the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj654
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the concurrent eviction decree of two courts below on the ground of subletting by the defendants-tenant. The substantial question of law Involved in this case is:Whether after the dissolution of the firm M/s Dal Chand Vishveshwar Das, there is sub-letting to M/s Chand Ratan Shyam Sunder when the two partners of the original firm are the partners of the M/s Chand Ratan Shyam Sunder?2. The first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 28/4/1994 upheld the decree of the learned Civil Judge, Bikaner dated 6/8/1993 by which the suit No. 24/74 was decreed by the learned trial court. The plaintiff Smt. Pana Devi w/o Shri Vishwanath and Smt. Durga Devi wd/o Bheru Baksh Vyas, both are daughters of Battu Bai, who owned the suit premises 'Bara' (ground) situated in Bikaner, which was let out to the defendant No. l - Rameshwar Lai son of Ganesh Das for carrying on.the business of coal by the Firm M/sDal Chand Vis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1063
ORDERRaghuvendra S. Rathod, J.1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner challenging the order dated 12th May, 2000 passed by Special Court (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, in criminal appeal No. 153/98, whereby the learned Court had partly (sic) application filed by the complainant-petitioner by compounding the offence under Section 420, IPC and not in respect of the other offences.2. The learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner submits that he had made efforts to contact the client, but he has not responded nor he has any instructions from him. This misc. petition was filed in the year 2000 and, thereafter it was decided by the High Court on 24th August, 2004, whereby the same was allowed. Thereafter, the State of Rajasthan filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (115/2008), arising out of the SLP (Criminal) No. 3582 of 2005. The appeal was heard and decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 15th January, 2008...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)12VatReporter67
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue, seeking to challenge the order of the Tribunal, dated 20.4.2005 The appeal was admitted on 2l.5.2007, by framing following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the refund where the incidence of duty had been passed onto the customers initially and subsequently the debit notes were issued by the suppliers of raw material but not credited in the accounts of the customers by the assessee?2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the controversy are that the assessee processes man-made fabrics. For that they receive grey unprocessed fabric, from the suppliers, and in terms of notfn dated 1.3.2001, they got deemed CENVAT Credit in respect of declared inputs, used in the manufacture of processed fabrics. The prevalent rate of deemed credit was 45% of the duty, paid on the processed fabric.3. It was the date 11.6.2001, on which the said notfn was amended...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj639
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. These two writ petitions having similar facts and involving an identical Issue regarding interpretation of Clause (vii) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1986 have been heard together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.2. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1986 ('the Rules of 1986' hereafter) have been made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 for regulating the grant of quarry licences, mining leases, and other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for connected purposes. Chapter-III of the Rules of 1986 deals with grant of quarry licences wherein Rule 22 provides that no quarry licence shall be granted for any mineral deposit unless it is notified by the Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining Engineer after due approval of the Director in the Gazette or in the newspaper as provide...
Tag this Judgment!