Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1977CriLJ68; 1976(9)WLN377
S.N. Modi, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kota, dated January 29, 1973, convicting and sentencing Janardan Prasad. the appellant, to life imprisonment for the murder of Mool Chand.2. The incident, to which this case relates, took place in Kota on April 14, 1972 at about 1.15 p.m. at the shop of P.W. 9 Gopi Chand. On the date of the incident, the appellant was holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. At about 12 noon on that day, the appellant, the deceased and P.W. 10 K.P. Mehta assembled at the shop of P.W. 9 Gopi Chand, and all of them including Gopi Chand commenced taking drinks. The appellant had a revolver Ex. 1 with him in a leather case. He took out the revolver Ex. ]. from the leather case. He loaded it with cartridges and commenced cleaning it. Soon thereafter, all of a sudden, a report of a gun fire was heard and Mool Chand, the deceased, who was sitting in front of the appellant on a bench, fell down on the ground and died instantaneou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj1; 2006(1)WLC618
Ashok Parihar, J.1. This is yet another unfortunate case where a person has to seek protection of this Court against inaction and indifferent casual approach of the authorities concerned.2. While the petitioner serving as Additional District Magistrate (In-charge of Law & Order), Jaipur City, Jaipur, there has been an encounter between the police and militants of Khalistan Liberation Force, an internationally banned group of terrorists, in the Model Town area of Jagatpura, Jaipur in the night of 25th/26th of February, 1995. One terrorist - Navneet Singh Kandia - was killed and other terrorists managed to escape from the spot. When the petitioner came to know about the incident he rushed to the spot immediately and supervised the search operation in which an empty leather briefcase was traced containing one car key with a paper slip attached thereto. Petitioner, at his own initiative, started thorough investigation of Transport Department records and traced out the Head-quarters of inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj372; 2002(5)WLC243
Mathur, J.1. This Reference Application under Section 35H of the Centra! Excise Act, 19-14 is made by the M/s. Aditya Cement, a Unit of Grasim Industries Limited seeking questions of law as framed in para 14-E arising out of the order dated 21.5.2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT'.2. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the department that the question of law, which is sought to be called for reference for the Tribunal has been answered by the Apex Court in Jaypee Rewa Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise (1). Though it is agreed by both the learned counsel for the parties that the question involved has been settled by the Apex Court and, as such, the Reference can be straightway answered but the requirement of law is that this court will have to first call the statement of case from the Tribunal and refer the question of law. Thus, this Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2004(177)ELT133(Raj); RLW2004(1)Raj246; 2003(4)WLC418
Singh, C.J.1. Reference has been made to us by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, to consider the following question of law:'Whether the explosive used in the respondents' mines situated outside the premises of their cement factory, for the purpose of excavating limestone as raw material for manufacture of cement, can be considered as inputs (as used in relation to the manufacture of cement) eligible for Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944'.2. The facts giving rise to the Reference are as follows:3. The respondent company manufactures cement in it's factory located in Udaipur. One of the raw materials for manufacture of cement is Limestone. The respondent obtained Limestone from mines owned by it. It used duty paid explosives to extract Limestone from the mines. It is not disputed that the Limestone so extracted was exempt from payment of excise duty by reason of exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj993; 2002(3)WLC555
Rathore, J. 1. For conducting the elections of Gram Panchayat, State of Rajaslhan has issued a notification dated 11th January, 2000 and in pursuance of the notification dated 11th January, 2000, the election of the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Jatwada was held on 31.1.20,00.2. The petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Jatwada on 31.1.2000 itself.3. The petitioner submitted his nomination paper before the Returning Officer, Jatwara Panchayat Circle for contesting the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jatwara. At the time of submission of nomination paper, nobody has objected his candidature and the petitioner has contested the election of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Jatwada and was duly declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jalwada as the petitioner got the highest votes, The certificate to this effect was also issued on 31 st January, 2000 by the Election Office.4. The defeated candidate Shri Ladu Ram-respondent No. 2 filed an election petition before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(2)WLC19; 1991WLN(UC)402
N.K. Jain, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed Under Section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the judgment of learned District Judge, Udaipur dt. 1.8.89 whereby the award given by arbitrator was made rule of the court.2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act. Respondent No. 1 is a registered firm having its registered office at Calcutta and brench office at Udaipur. The appellant and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement Ex. 1 on 14.5.81 for excavation and removal of overburden at Jhamarkotra Mines, Udaipur on a turn-key basis for excavation, removal transportation including loading and unloading, disposal clumping, dozing, levelling and spreading etc. of over burden at the specified dump yards including final dressing of the mine benches, faces and sides etc. and incidental mining rock phosphate are encoundered during the excavation of over burden, its transportation orestacks etc. The contract is for a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10186/2011 Deravar Singh V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Order dt:2. 7/2014 1/28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10186/2011 Deravar Singh V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Order :::2. d July, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Shreyansh Mardia for Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the petitioner. Ms.Shweta Bora, for the respondents. --- REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:1. The present petitioner Derawar Singh S/O Bhakar Singh working as Sub-Inspector of Police has preferred this writ petition claiming an out of turn promotion. against the 10% reserved vacancies for the year 2006-2007 under Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 which is enacted to reward the police personnel who perform the outstanding and extraordinary acts of courage in discharge of their duties and with their outstanding caliber in the fields like anti-dacoity or anti-smuggling or any special field of poli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Abdul Hamid & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Appeal No.929/2013 against the judgment dated 28.4.2012 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.36/2010. Date of Judgment ::31. t October, 2014 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN Mr. Dhirendra Singh, for the appellants. Mr. J.P.Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor, for the State. .... BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MATHUR,J.) REPORTABLE Being questioned correctness of the judgment dated 28.4.2012 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.36/2010, this appeal is before us. By the judgment impugned learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123 Ranbir Penal Code read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 25 read with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC321; 1995(1)WLN451
N.K. Jain, J.1. Since all the writ petitions are arising out of the same matter and the petitioners have claimed almost same relief, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2884 of 1994:Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that during the search of premises of one Poonam Chand Vishnoi, Mr. Chain Singh Rajpurohit, State House Officer Police Station Bajju District Bikaner recovered some arms from his possession. It is alleged that the accused Poonam chand Vishnoi during the Course of interrogation admitted that he was involved in the smuggling of arms and ammunition from Pakistan and he had sold some arms and ammunitions to the persons. In pursuance of the information given by Poonam Chand Vishnoi, an FIR (Annex. 1) dt. 28.9.93 was chalked out and a case under Sections 3 & 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the TADA') read with Sections 3/25 of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009ACJ1019
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.12.1992 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in Claim Case No. 3 of 1989, the claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal.2. A claim petition was filed by the claimants contending that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. 7435, car No. GBQ 966 was dashed, resulting in death of car driver Kalu Miya. The dependants of Kalu Miya maintained claim application, claiming Rs. 3,94,000. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,15,000 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent in favour of the claimants, but out of the total claim allowed in favour of the claimants, the liability of the insurance company was maintained to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 and remaining liability was fastened on the owner of the truck and ors.3. Assailing the judgment of the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the appellants pressed only one issue which is pertaining to the liability of the insurance c...
Tag this Judgment!