Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-11-2001
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN95
..... apprehended that sho madandan singh, who was investigating the case only with a view to favour the respondent no. 2 may file case against them for the offence under section 9b of the explosive act, 1884 which is a bailable offence and not under sections 3 & 5 of the explosive substance act, 1908, for which life imprisonment is provided under section 3 of the said act. after issuing notice in that petition and hearing all the learned counsel for the parties the division bench of this court headed by hon'ble the chief justice disposed of the ..... . but, i am sure that after the record is send back and it is received by the trial court, the learned trial judge shall definitely go into the entire record and decide on his own as to whether prima facie offence under section 9b of the explosive act is made out or offence under section 3 & 5 of the explosive substance act is made out against the respondents no.2 and 3. after going through the record and the statements of the witnesses, if the learned trial judge ..... court also and trial court, therefore, rightly rejected that application. learned public prosecutor shri r.k. soni has also raised this very objection regarding the maintainability of this petition on the ground of locus standi of the petitioner.4. in my considered opinion, the preliminary objection regarding locus standi of the petitioner has to be accepted because petitioner had no locus to file this petition. merely because his application was rejected that would not entitle .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-13-2001
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
Decided on : Dec-13-2001
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
Decided on : Dec-13-2001
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj546
Panwar, J.1. This is appeal is directed against the order dated 14.11.1990 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Camp at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby application (suit) filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed.2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that; a suit was filed by the appellant before the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 32,872.35 which was transferred to the Tribunal established under Section 24 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The case as set up by the appellant before the Tribunal is that; appellant firm had booked bales of cloth on 23.7.1986 by parcel train from Jodhpur to Hindaun City vide PWB No. 699790 dt.23.7.1986. PWB was 'self'. The appellant had sent the PWB to State Bank of India, Hindaun City with the instruction that the bilty be handed over to M/s. Gupta Cloth Store, Hindaun City on payment of Rs. 23,958.27. M/s. Gupta Cloth Store did not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-13-2001
Reported in : 2003ACJ1163; AIR2002Raj226; 2002(4)WLC748; 2002(4)WLN41
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 14-11-1990 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. Camp at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby application (suit) filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed.2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that: a suit was filed by the appellant before the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 32,872.35 which was transferred to the Tribunal established under Section 14 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. 1987. The case as set up by the appellant before the Tribunal is that; appellant-firm had booked bales of cloth on 23-7-1986 by parcel train from Jodhpur to Hindatin City vide PWB No. 699790, dt. 23-7-1986. PWB was self. The appellant had sent the PWB to State Bank of India, Hindaun City with the instruction that the bilty be handed over to M/s. Gupta Cloth Store, Hindaun City on payment of Rs. 23.958.27. M/s. Gupta Cloth Store did no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-27-2001
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj495; 2002(3)WLN248; 2002(3)WLN248
Mathur, J.1. This revision petition under Section 86 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994' at the instance of Additional Commissioner, Anti Evasion, Commercial Taxes has been filed against the judgment dated 6.10.1998 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby it hasbeen held that the notification dt. 7.3.1994 exempting the women entrepreneurs in tiny sector covers all sort of levy of taxes including the purchase tax. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondent assessee M/s. Arihant Industries, RIICO Industrial Area, Shivganj, submitted an application under Section 40 of the Act o 1994, stating that she is a woman entrepreneur in the tiny sector and is engaged in the manufacturing of edible oil. She purchased oil seeds for manufacture of edible oil from M/s Parihar Trading Company and other registered dealers of Sumerpur, who charged 2% tax on submitting ST 17 Forms. She claimed exemption from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-03-2001
Reported in : [2001]252ITR88(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the assessee, Rao Narain Singh of Masuda, relating to the assessment year 1960-61. It arises out of Income-tax Appeal No. 786/JP of 1972-73 and Cross Objection No. 33/JP of 1972-73 for the assessment year 1960-61. Along with the statement of case, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion arising out of the order of the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeal and cross-objection.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the aforesaid estate was different in nature from the estates created by the Crown Grants Act 15 of 1895, and that, as such, the decision of the Privy Council in Rajendra v. Raghubans Kanwar AIR 1918 PC 25, would not apply to the facts of the present case ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-14-2001
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj406; 2002(1)WLN286
Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are Mausa and Mausi of the minor children for which there is a dispute over their custody, against the order dated 27.4.2001 passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Deedwana District Nagaur by which he accepted the application filed by respondent No. 1 Biharlal (grand-father of the minor children) under Section 97 Cr.P.C. and ordered that keeping the custody of Priya and Rakshita with the petitioners is against the law and, therefore, custody of these two minor children be handed over to their grand-father Biharilal (respondent No. 1 as per the wishes of their father.2. It arises in the following circumstances :-There is a dispute over the custody of two minor daughters, namely, Priya and Rakshita and they are daughters of one Mahesh Kumar, who is in jail in connection with murder of his wife, meaning thereby the case of the prosecution is that Mahesh Kumar murdered his wife (mother of the minor children)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-27-2001
Reported in : [2003]131STC88(Raj); 2002(2)WLC106; 2001(3)WLN112
Chauhan, J. (1). The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the Notification (corrigendum) dated 30.9.99 (Annx. 7) and/or in the alternative to hold that the said notification has no application to the petitioner and also for quashing the consequential provisional assessment orders and notices and further to quash the order of the State Level Screening Committee dated 13.12.1999 as well as the eligibility certificate dated 29.2.2000 in so far as the same restricted the petitioner's benefits to 25% instead of full benefits as per the original incentive scheme. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacturing and selling of Portland cement and clinker. The State Government notified the Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Exemption Scheme for Industries, 1998 (for short, 'the Exemption Scheme') vide Gazette Notification dated 7.4.98, in exercise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-12-2001
Reported in : AIR2001Raj286; [2001]250ITR789(Raj); 2001(4)WLN217
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The present writ petition ana other writ petitions (mentioned in the appended Schedule) raise an interesting question of law in the matter of the one-time tax scheme introduced by way of insertion of Section 5(1B) of the Finance Act, 1989 (Act No. 6 of 1989).2. The questions for our consideration are :'(1) Whether, fresh assessment is permissible under the law in respect of the land held by the previous owner who had exercised the option in terms of one time tax scheme prescribed by Section 3(1B) of the Rajasthan Land and Buildings Tax Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), even though the certificate exempting the aforesaid land from the future tax liability had been issued by the competent officer of the Department ?(2) Whether, the tax under the Act is upon a land or building or both separately as units and when the property in question has already been subjected to tax, the question of any further tax liability under the Act can arise merely on acc...
Tag this Judgment!