Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(141)ELT623(Raj); 2003(2)WLN258
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This reference application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is made by the M/s. Aditya Cement, a Unit of Grasim Industries Limited seeking questions of law as framed in Para 14E 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 reported in : 2001ECR193(SC) . 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 ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974WLN839
1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions complain that their liberty has been infringed on account of their unlawful detention under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). We shall examine the validity and legality of their detention in the light of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the procedural safeguards provided under the Act.2 As the case of both the petitioners is common and the grounds of their detention are identical, it would be proper to dispese of both the petitions by a common order. We will, however, mention the facts with reference to the writ petition No. 2223 of 1974.3. The facts are brief and simple The two petitioners namely, Bhagwan Das, and Nathmal, are brothers and ate partners carrying on their partnership business at Sikar under the name and style of M/s Ramesh Kumar Bhagwan Das. They deal in general merchandise and according to them, they carried on thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003(161)ELT94(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Shree Cement Ltd., Beawar is engaged in manufacture of cement and clinker falling under Chapter sub-heading 2502.29 and 2502.10 respectively of the Schedule appended to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. According to the respondent-revenue, the assessee has incorrectly availed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,37,523/- under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the period September, 1999 to January, 2000. Thus, by the impugned show cause notice dated 18-2-2000 (Annexure 4), the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why the amount recovered under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the amount of Rs. 20,941/- be not appropriated in the Government account and further the interest and the amount so determined under Rule 57-I(1) should not be recovered under Rule 57-I(3) of the Rules. The petitioner has also been called upon to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed upon him under Rule 173-Q(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLN615
Balia, J.1. This petition has come up for consideration for the reason that the parole application filed by the appellant has been rejected primarily on the ground that the prisoner in question is resident of a place which is out-side the State of Rajasthan. He has already been denied parole. For this reason the petitioner has also referred to Article 21 and Article 14 stating that denying a parole on the ground of residence alone results in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15 and 21. This necessitated examining the validity of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958.2. In view of the aforesaid, the contention raised by the appellant in his application, who is not represented by the counsel, we issued notice to Advocate General for assisting the Court in the matter.3. The Advocate General has urged that under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules'), there is no absolute bar ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985(2)WLN615
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Hanumangarh dated February 13, 1981, by which the appellant Mithasingh was convicted under Section 302, IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and three years' rigorous imprisonment on the respective counts.2. The prosecution case is short and simple and in succinct it is as follows. Azyabsingh the deceased victim in the case was the son of PW 1 Gulabsingh, Jat Sikh and cousin of PW 2 Sukhdeo Singh. He was living with his parents in village Chandro P.S. Hanumangarh, district Ganga-nagar. The accused is also resident of the same village. Azyabsingh was convicted under Section 307, IPC and was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment for making attempt on the life of the appellant. The appellant, due to this attempt on his life by Azyabsingh, started harbouring ill-will against him. Azayabsingh, went in appeal. The appeal was admi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3131; 1997WLC(Raj)UC352
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr. P.C) has been filed against the order dated 28-3-97 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, cum- Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 91/96.2. Briefly stated, for the disposal of the present petition, the facts giving rise to this petition are that Hazari Ram resident of Chak 19 B. D. lodged FIR No. 129/95 at the Police Station, Khajuwala, District Bikaner on 25-10-95 at 12.30 p.m. reporting at about 7.30 a.m. that he had gone to the field of his son-in-laws Heera Lal and Bhagirath etc. whereat mustard was to be sown with the tractor of Maniram Bishnoi. The accused Ram Kumar resident of Chak 3 B. D. accompanied by his co-accused persons, came armed with a D.B.B.L. who was exclaiming that Randhir Singh and Jagdish should remain there and that he would kill both of them with his gun. He (info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR988]; RLW2003(1)Raj246; 2002(3)WLN61; 2002(3)WLN61
Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition has been registered on a letter of convict Om Prakash Resident of village Kherampura Police Station Adampur District-Hissar (Haryana). He was arrested in September, 1995. He was tried on the charge for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by judgment dated 29.1.1999 convicted him for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He is presently lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner. He has undergone a sentence of about six years. He submitted an application before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner for consideration of his case by Advisory Committee for release on parole. The District Magistrate obtained the police report from Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Officer, Hissar. The Superintendent of Police has sent an adverse report stating that if he is released, tension may crop up in the village. The Sub-Divisional Officer has verified that the house of the applicant is required ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2008(1)WLN63
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1.This appeal has been preferred to challenge the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara dt. 17.02.1993.2. The claimants non-appellants preferred claim petition, stating that on 07.11.1986, at about 5.00 p.m., Kanji and Dharia were going on bicycle to village Miya-ka-Parla. On the way at Ghatol Anandpuri road, a Bus bearing No. RJB 2772 hit bicycle, due to which Kanji and Dharia fell down and sustained injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. Dharia died in the hospital, whereas Kanji sustained fracture. Due to death of Dharia, claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was claimed towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- were claimed towards mental agony to the parents of Dharia and Rs. 10,000/- for wife.3. In reply to the claim petition, Insurance Company disputed the income of Dharia, apart from disputing the issuance of the cover note. The Insurance Company disp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj447
Govind Mathur, J.1. All these petitions for writ raise common legal question, thus, 1 propose to decide all these cases by one common judgment.2. To regulate recruitment and other service conditions in the Rajasthan Prabodhak Service, the Government of Rajasthan, while exercising powers conferred by Section 102 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, enacted the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2008'). An intention to fill in the existing vacancies of Prabodhaks was notified by the Government of Rajasthan on 31.5.2008. Accordingly, the process of recruitment was initiated in various Districts of the State. The eligibility for appointment as Prabodhaks under the rules of 2008 is as follows:Senior Secondary School certificate or intermediate or its equivalent, with Diploma or certificate in basic teachers training of a duration of not less than two years of Diploma or certificate in elementary teachers, training of a dura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN224
M.C. Jain, J.1. These 26 are writ, petitions where in orders passed by he Sub-Divisional Officer, Sojat, (respondent No. 3) dated 18.9.75 and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur (respondent No. 5). dated 26.3.76 in ceiling proceedings in relation to the lands held and transferred by respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioners, have been sought to be quashed.2. The petitioners have averred in their writ petitions that they are agriculturists domiciled in Rajasthan within the defnition of the term as given in explanation to Section 30DD of Chapter III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') They are permanently residing In Rajasthan since birth and earn their livelihood wholly from agriculture and cultivate their lands by their own labour and the labour of the members of their family They being landless cultivators as defined in the Act purchased Agricultural lands described in para 2 of the writ petitions not exceeding 30 acres from respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!