Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2376; RLW2010(1)Raj449
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These four criminal appeals, on behalf of accused-appellants, and one criminal leave to appeal, on behalf of the State, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2000, passed by the Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Mansingh Death case), Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 8/98, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The trial Court, vide its impugned order, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:Accused Under ImprisonmentSection1. Abdul Mateen 14 of the To undergo 5 years RIForeigners and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;Act, 1946 in default, to furtherundergo 1 years' SI4 of PDPP To undergo 10 years RIAct and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI456 IPC To undergo 3 years RIand a fine of Rs. 3,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 6 months' SI307/120B To undergo 10 years' RIIPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI435/120B To undergo 7 years RIIPC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj648; [2004]137STC326(Raj); 2003(2)WLC398; 2003(1)WLN462
Calla, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the order dated 24th Nov., 2001 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of assessment in the matter of Sales Tax has been dismissed as not maintainable by the learned Single Judge on the ground that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. The parties are not at dispute that the remedy under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is there so as to challenge the order passed by the Assessing Officer against the order of assessment.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the remedy of the appeal as aforesaid is coupled with an onerous condition of depositing the amount as assessed by the Assessing Officer under the Sales Tax Act and, therefore, unless the due amount is deposited, the appeal cannot be entertained. It is also the case of the appellant that he is not in a position even t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ1149Raj; 1994(1)WLC362
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the award dated June 20, 1992 and the order dated January 20, 1993.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Assistant with M/s. Anil Steel and Industries Ltd, Kanakpura, Jaipur and was confirmed on October 31, 1984. He was promoted on the post of Assistant Foreman and was dismissed from service on July 20, 1991. An application was filed before the Competent Authority under the provision of Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1958). The Competent Authority refused to entertain the said application vide order dated June 20, 1992 on the ground that the employer is registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1958 are not applicable. It was observed by the said authority that the petitioner may raise the industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. A review application was s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ10Raj; 1994(1)WLC97
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated December 3, 1991 of the learned Single Judge of this Court Under the aforesaid order the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, Agriculture Market Committee, Alwar (for short the Agriculture Market Committee) against the order dated August 16, 1991 made on the application under Section 28-A(2) of the Rajas than Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (for short, the Act). The said application was filed before the Prescribed Authority under the Act (for short, the Prescribed Authority) by Kishorilal (respondent No. 2 herein).2. Kishorilal, respondent No. 2 herein, filed an application under Section 28-A(2) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority in which a case was set up that he was appointed on the post of Class IV in the office of the appellant herein and he continued Jo work on that post upto February 22, 1989 and without any notice his services were terminated o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ1066Raj; 1993(1)WLC641
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. An interesting question which arises for determination in this Revision Petition is as to whether jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes or District Court to hear Appeals against an order passed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short 'the Act of 1936') by a competent authority stands excluded by virtue of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'). 2. An application under Section 15(2) of1936 Act was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Authority appointed under the Act of 1936, Sawaimadhopur, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,42,874.12. Respondent No. 2 alleged that he has unlawfully been deprived of the benefits flowing from his retrospective promotion to the higher post. 3. After hearing the parties, the Authority appointed under the Act of 1936 passed an order dated August 31, 1990 under Section 15(3) ofthe Act and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,55,278.91 towards wages alongwith one time p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : III(2004)ACC810; AIR2005Raj124; RLW2004(4)Raj2074
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This first appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1987 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota, dismissed the civil suit No. 50/1983.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit on 2nd April 1983, for recovery of Rs. 18,500/- with the averments that in compliance of the orders of the plaintiffs, M/s Bhatia Stones Company, Ramganjmandi, district kota, booked polished stones worth Rs. 990.81 with the defendant Railway, vide Railway Receipt No. 334787 on 7.4.1980. The delivery of the goods was to be given to the plaintiffs at Bombay, but the same were not delivered by the defendants. The plaintiffs informed the defendants vide letters dated 1.6.1980 and 17.7.1980 and thereafter served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 25.8.1980 vide registered post, which was received but with no result. The plaintiffs prayed for decree of the suit amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. (3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2006(3)WLC421
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the instant with petition the petitioners-plaintiffs seek to challenge the order dated 13.5.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Shahpura (Jaipur) whereby their application for leading secondary evidence as per Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of the plot of land situated in Manoharpur, District Jaipur delineated in read colour in the map annexed to the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs is that they and their predecessors owned and possessed the plot in dispute since 1929 but when the defendants attempted to make encroachment over the plot in question, to carry out some construction thereon and further collusively obtained allotment letter from the Municipal Board, Manoharpur in respect of the plot in question, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1978Raj127; 1977()WLN684
Kudal, J. 1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High CourtOrdinance, 1949, is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated May 9, 1977.2. Learned counsel for the respondent-decree-holder has raised preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act), which came into force from Feb. 1, 1977. It was contended that by the Amending Act the definition of 'decree' in Section 2(2) of the Civil P. C. has been amended and the words 'Section 47 or' have been deleted as a result of which any order passed under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. is, therefore, not appealable. It was further contended that the intention of the Amending Act is to shorten the litigation and not to allow it to be prolonged unnecessarily in execution matters. It was further contended that in view of the recent amendment, order passed under Section 47, CPC now does not a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(2004)ACC86; AIR2003Raj251; RLW2003(4)Raj2248; 2003(3)WLC428
Mathur, J. 1. In this group of special appeals and writ petitions the common question of law arises whether dumpers though used only within the enclosed factory premises fall within the exempted category and are 'motor vehicle' being adaptable and kept for use on roads even though actually used within the enclosed premises of petitioner factory or the mines area, are liable to pay tax under Section 4 and 4-B of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 19512. The contention of the petitioners/appellants is that the dumpers are essentially earth moving equipment not adapted for use upon the roads and, therefore, are outside the ambit of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951. On the other hand the case of the Department is that the dumpers are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on roads and being 'motor vehicle' per se and same liable to pay the tax on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads. In our view the contro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2274; [2004]135STC90(Raj); 2003(3)WLC194
Prasad, J.1. All these revision petitions circle around a principal question, whether the plant and machinery given on lease by a Co-operative society is a movable property or an immovable property ?2. A judgment of the Rajasthan Tax Board is under challenge wherein, it has been held that plant and machinery given on lease is immovable property. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions have been preferred by the assessing authority. For the purposes of facts, revision petition No. 207/2003 is taken.3. Respondent-assessee has given his land, building, plant and machinery on lease for the year 1993-94, He received a lease money of Rs. 6,21,000/- lease included plant, machinery, land and building of the assessee. The Assessing Officer gave rebate as per the Rules of P.W.D. at the rate of 8.5% on land and building. The other amount on account of lease on plant and machinery was subjected to tax treating it to be movable property.4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the D...
Tag this Judgment!