Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-20-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3124
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, Major Jagmal Singh Yadav and Ram Balak Patel, against the order dated Feb. 6, 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4 Deeg Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2008 whereby the trial court framed charges under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against them petitioner No. 1 is Proprietor of M/s. Jagmal Singh & Corporation and petitioner No. 2 is employee in the said firm. The said firm is a license holder firm bearing licence No. E/NC/HN/22/13 (E-10019) HN-159/E which was issued by the Chief Explosive Controller, Northern Region, Faridabad (Haryana) and is dealing in providing explosive for the use of mines in the country. For using explosive under the aforesaid license, the petitioner established site project office at village Luhesar, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur and sought permission to use explosive in the mines at Kaman by to Chief controller of Explosive. As per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-03-2009
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
Decided on : Apr-29-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj2973
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 23.05.1987 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby he convicted accused-appellant in the offence under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal succinctly are thus:On 27th January, 1985 at about 8.00 a.m. when P.W. 8, Shri Mahesh Chand Dubey, S.H.O. Police Station Khairthal, restrict Alwar was coming back after conducting an investigation in case no. 11 registered in the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 406 of Indian Penal Code, received an information from an informer that one Rohtash son of Badri Prasad resident of Khairthal, Alwar was manufacturing gun powder. Having received this informatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-21-2009
Reported in : 2009(3)WLN456
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the Notification dt. 08.01.1991, published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act', for short) and the Declaration dt. 17.04.1993, published under Section 6 of the Act.2. In a nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioners are son of Shri Bithal Das Ajmera. On 27.07.1953, Shri Bithal Das Ajmera bought a piece of land falling in khasra No. 16 Village Vijay Mahal, near Jal Mahal area in Jaipur. The said land was initially mutated in his name. Unfortunately, in 1972 both Bithal Das Ajmera and his wife expired. Since the petitioners were their surviving legal heirs, both the petitioners jointly inherited khatedari rights in the said land. The Tehsildar, Jaipur carried out the necessary mutation proceedings. He mutated their names in the revenue records of 15.04.1974. In order to develope the area around Jal Mahal and to install a ropeway from Nahargarh Peak to the Jal Mahal area, the Government published a not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-29-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3162
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-11-2004, passed by Deputy Inspector General (Stamps) and Collector Stamps, Kota whereby the learned Collector held that an order passed by a High Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1959, (`the Companies Act' for short) permitting amalgamation of two companies is covered under the definition of word 'conveyance', contained in Section 2(xi) of Rajasthan Stamps Act,1998 (`the Act' for short). Therefore, the petitioner company is liable to pay the stamp duty. The Learned Collector had also directed the Sub-Registrar (Stamps) to calculate the extent of stamp duty payable. He further directed the Sub-Registrar to recover the stamp duty in case the petitioner company does not deposit the requisite stamp duty. The petitioner company has also challenged the order dated 21-6-2006, passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (`the Board' for short), whereby the learned Board has upheld the order dated 8-11-2004.2. The factual ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-13-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj1991
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned orders dated 10.9.2008 (Annexu. 1) passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Barmer and order dated 18.9.2008 (Annex. 2) and 27.10.2008 (Annex. 3).2. Brief facts of the case are that, as per the petitioner, being active and vigilant in every sphere of life the petitioner developed friends but, with the passage of time, some enmity arose with his friends because the activities of the petitioner were in the direction of helping the needy and poor fellows who are struggling for their lawful rights and, thereby, serving the sociei' through his activities; and, on account of such enmity, certain criminal cases were registered against him, for which, as per the petitioner, he cannot be treated as an anti-social element.3. The contention of the petitioner, in the writ petition, is that he is contractor of various developmental projects run by the State Government, therefore, the activen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-04-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Raj178; RLW2009(3)Raj2081
ORDERDalip Singh, J.1. The questions for consideration which have been referred to the Larger Bench for decision are as follows:(1) Whether Section 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 has its overriding effect on Section 32(3)(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001;(2) Whether the suits, applications and other proceedings relating to fixation of standard or provisional rent under Sections 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which have been saved by Section 32(3) (a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, will be. governed by the provisions of the Old Act of 1950, after coming into force of the New Act of 2001 or will be governed by the provisions of the New Act of 2001 as Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1950, having been impliedly repealed, by virtue of Section 29 of the New Act of 2001 as held by the Division Bench in Kamal Kishore's case (supra)?2. The background in which these questions arise are that a writ petition was filed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-21-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3112; 2009(3)WLN297
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 16.08.1999, dismissing the appellant's writ petition, on the interpretation of Section 92(2)(c) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act.2. The facts of the case are, that the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court, alleging inter alia, that the petitioner is a registered association, and wrote many letters, asked permission to remove the carcasses of their own cattle, which was given by the State, the petitioner deposited Rs. 10,000/-. However, the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 restrained the servants of the petitioner from removing the carcasses. Thereupon the petitioner filed writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3895/91, which is pending. It is alleged, that on 08.08.1990 the Municipal Council Bikaner wrote a letter to the Director, Local Bodies, mentioning, that according to Section 92(2)(c) all the carcasses are the property of the Municipality. The Director did not agree w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-03-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3226; 2009(3)WLN420
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 aggrieved by the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur dtd.31.3.2008 in claim Case No. 11/2006.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the husband of the respondent No. 1 Smt. Badami, namely, Pappu Ram while driving Truck No. RJ-19/1G-3189 coming from Mumbai to Jodhpur in the night between 29.7.2003 and 30.7.2003, collided with Trailer No. HR-55-0707 and in the said accident Pappu Ram lost his life. The wife of the said deceased Pappu Ram, namely, Smt. Bidami Bai and his children Mamta, Rekha and Munna initially filed claim case No. 103/2005 on 16.5.2005 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur and the said claim was awarded on 30.11.2005 and a sum of Rs. 4,60,333/-was paid to the claimants for the said death, in January, 2006. Thereafter somewhere in June, 2006, it appears that the same claimants filed pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-06-2009
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ225Raj; RLW2009(3)Raj2029; 2009(3)WLN571
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Petitioner Gopal Prasad Varshney was appointed on the post of Clerk in the respondent Bank on 23.01.1965 after giving age relaxation of two and half years in view of his additional qualification and retired from the post of Senior Manager on attaining age of superannuation on 31.07.1995. The pension scheme was introduced in the Banking Industry in November, 1993. The respondent Bank also framed its own employees pension regulation in 1993. The total service of the petitioner with the respondent Bank was 31 years, whereas for 100% pension 33 years service is required and for short of 2 years service, the petitioner wanted to take the benefit of Rule 26(c) of The Bank of Rajasthan Limited (Employees') Pension Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') as prior to the service with the respondent Bank, the petitioner had served in the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation for the period from 01.08.1959 to 09.01.1965. To this effect, the petitioner submitted his repre...
Tag this Judgment!