Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-27-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)WLC187
..... of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision.'4. as the appellant has been convicted under sections 7 read with 13(1)(d)(2) of the prevention of corruption act 1988 his conviction could not have been suspended in view of the aforequoted mandate of the hon'ble supreme court.5. so far ..... rajasthan service rules, 1951. thereafter learned judge a.c.d. cases jaipur city convicted and sentenced the appellant on sept. 15, 1999 under sections 7 read with 13(1)(d)(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 in criminal case no. 3/95. the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant were ordered to be suspended by the high court ..... under section 389(1) cr.p.c. in an appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the learned judge acd cases.2. in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-08-2001
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR780]; (2002)IILLJ701Raj; 2002WLC(Raj)UC271
..... any retrenchment compensation was paid to him before his services were terminated. therefore, the termination of his services were in violation of section 25f of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short 'the act of 1947'). apart from this, violation of section 25g was also raised.7. the appellants-employers denied the claim of the workman inter alia on the ground that he was ..... rajesh balia, j.1. mr. arjun purohit, appears for the respondents. service is complete.heard learned counsel for the parties on application under section 5 of the limitation act.2. the appeal is reported to be barred by one day. the cause shown by learned counsel for the appellants is that the sanction received by the counsel for filing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-02-2001
Reported in : 2001(3)WLC452
..... to the election petition are altogether different and independent of the powers of the state government taking action against an elected member under section 38 of the act of 1994,10. the constitutional validity of section 19(l), which provides for disqualification of having more than two children has already been upheld by the division bench of this court ..... panchayati raj institution concerned.(3) the member or the chairperson or the deputy chairperson removed under sub-section (1) or against whom findings have been recorded under the proviso to that sub-section, shall not be eligible forbeing chosen under this act for a period of five years from the date of his removal or, as the case may ..... kr gksrh gsa bl izdkj vkius vkdih rhljh thfor lurku dh tue frffk dksnqik;k gs o blhfy, vki bl d`r; gsrq nks'kh gsa**5. section 38 of the rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994 provides for removal and suspension of any member including a chairperson or a deputy chairperson of a panchayat raj institution .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-27-2001
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR533]; (2002)IIILLJ141Raj; 2002WLC(Raj)UC389
..... the appellant to be within limitation.3. aggrieved by the order impugned, the appellant employer has filed this appeal. it is settled law that appeal under section 82 of the act shall lie from the ei court only if it involves substantial question of law. in the instant case, i find no question of law much less ..... appeal is directed against the order dated november 29, 1994 passed by the employees' insurance court, whereby an application filed by appellant under section 75 of the employees' state insurance act, 1948 (for short 'the act') was rejected. the learned e.i. court reached to the conclusion that in the year 1986-87 and thereafter, 8 or more than ..... , reached to the conclusion that at the time of inspection, 8 or more than 8 employees were found working and therefore, they are governed by provisions of esi act. according to the appellant, the appellant is running the business ot loading and unloading of goods from appellant firm and the persons engaged for loading and unloading of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-30-2001
Reported in : [2001]258ITR387(Raj)
..... or indirectly to meet the actual cost. the court further held that the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the actual cost under section 43(1) of the income-tax act for the purpose of calculation of depreciation, etc. thus the first question has been answered by the apex court in favour of the assessee and ..... and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under section 80hh of the income-tax act, 1961, should be allowed on the gross income before deducting depreciation and investment allowance ?'2. the relevant facts are that the assessee is in receipt of ..... of central government subsidy is not deductible from the money cost to the assessee of its plant, machinery and building while computing the original cost thereof under section 43(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, for the purpose of allowing depreciation or investment allowance, etc. ?'r.a. nos. 21 and 22/jp of 1989 :'whether, on the facts .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-02-2001
Reported in : I(2002)ACC497; II(2002)ACC290; 2002ACJ497; 2001(1)WLC601
..... 1) whether the applicant was passenger of train no. 9023 dn. on 23-6-1998?(2) whether the alleged incident does not fall under the definition of section 123 (c) the railways act, 1989?(3) whether the railway administration is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicant ?(4) to what amount of compensation, if any the applicant is ..... railway is not liable to pay any compensation for damages. loss or injury as has been narrated by claimant and that the provisions of section 123(c)(ii) and section 124-a of railways act are not applicable in the present case:(ii) if at all any action can be preferred against the railways is only on the ground of ..... must'involve actually bodily injury or hurt and in that situation according to counsel for railways such an application would be maintainable, otherwise not. even though section 124-a of the railways act does mention the word injury but such injury cannot be said to be bodily injury only. such injury includes any type of violence minor or major .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-21-2001
Reported in : 2002CriLJ394
..... , according to school certificate, is 15-5-1984 and as per definition provided under sub-section (k) of section 2 of the act of 2000, 'juvenile' or 'child' means a person who has not completed eighteen year of age and since according to the school certificate, ..... the present accused petitioner manhoharlal was its khalasl. after usual investigation, police filed challan against the accused petitioner and one kunaram for the offence under section 8/15 of the ndps act.thereafter, the accused petitioner moved an application before the learned special judge ndps cases, jodhpur for grant of bail stating therein his date of birth ..... on 23-5-2001, sho, police station jaltaran chalked out regular fir no. 128/ 2001 for the offence under sections 8/15 of the narcotic drugs and psychotrophic substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ndps act') stating inter alia that on that day he conducted the search of truck bearing no. rj 19, g-5401 at .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-30-2001
Reported in : 2001(2)WLC668; 2001(4)WLN426
..... that the learned trial court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and that if a notice is issued by the customs department, an appeal lies to the collector (appeals) under section. 128 of the customs act. learned counsel for the respondent conlroverted these arguments. there is no dispute about facts.6. chief general manager state bank of india & ors. shri brij mohan shukla (1 ..... industries corporation including the point of jurisdiction and mainlainability of the suit. it was also pleaded that the notice issued by the customs department can be appealed under the customs act and that rajasthan small industries corporation was not given any amount nor the luggage was booked with it. however, it was admitted that m/s. samral shipping & transport system sent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-06-2001
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1588; 2002(4)WLN47
..... of india and ors. v. girdhari lal & etc, (7), that the district judge appointed by chief justice to discharge judicial function under sub-section (6) of section 11 of the artibtration act is a persona designata and it does not come under the definition of court and the orders passed by him are not revisable by high court under ..... no. 1 surgyan kanwar was discharging duties as 'aanganwari karyakarta' and therefore, was not qualified to contest the election as a panch or a member under section 19 of the panchayat act. the petitioner wanted to summon a circular in this regard. order 16 rule 6 cpc reads as under:-'6. summons to produce document. - any person ..... that the district judge having jurisdiction to hear the election petition under rule 80 of the rajasthan panchayat raj (election) rule, 1994, is an authority according to section 117 of the act of 1994. the decision of this 'authority' cannot be called in question by way of appeal. the term 'court' used in various headings of the rules .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-17-2001
Reported in : 2001(3)WLC603; 2001(3)WLN687
..... 10th of october 2000, passed by learned additional sessions judge, gangapurcity, discharging the accused persons saiim, akram, akhtar and shahbuddin alias idya from the offence under section 307 ipc is illegal and deserves to be set-aside.12. resullantly, i allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 10.10.2000 and remand ..... that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.'7. from the above section two things are clear. first things is that the sessions court can discharge an accused from the offence only if it finds that there is not sufficient ground ..... these injuries on the body of the injured to commit murder. because so many persons intervened, therefore, they could not commit his murder. for the offence under section 307 ipc, the main point for consideration is the intention of the accused persons. if the accused persons cause injuries with the intention to commil murder, then it .....
Tag this Judgment!