Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-18-1994
Reported in : 1994(1)WLN194
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. These appeals are brought against the common judgment of the learned District judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Cases No. 189/1988, 190/1988 and 191/1988, and arise from a contract between the parties. Hence, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts leading these appeals are as follows. The Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation (for short the Corporation') a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, after negotiations vide its letter dated June 7, 1982, awarded a contract to M/s G.S. Atwal & Co. (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Contractor') for raising the mineral 'dolomite'/rockphosphate in their leased are a known as 'Kanpur Mines' in Kolin project in Udaipur District, at the following rates:------------------------------------------------------------------------------Description of work. Quantity Rate per cub.m.---------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-01-1994
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2952; 1994(1)WLN348
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These two jail appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 26-8-1985, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has held the accused appellant Ghewaria guilty of the offences Under Section 302, I.P.C. and Under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and accused appellant Lakha Singh guilty of the offences Under Section 302/34 IPC and Under Sections 3/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused-appellant Ghewaria has been sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine', to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence Under Section 302, IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisoment for three months for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the accused appellant Lakha sing has been sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-18-1994
Reported in : 1995(1)WLC425; 1994(2)WLN444
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These revision petitions are being disposed-off by a common order because a common point of law is involved therein.2. These revision petitions have been preferred against the orders dated 3.7.92 and 29.7.92 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar in Sessions Case No.41/90 'State v. Harish Chadra' and Session Case No. 21/92 'State v. Devi and Ors.' respectively whereby allowing the application filed on behalf of accused non- petitioner (s), the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharged the accused non-petitioner (s) of the offence Under Sections 5(1)(9)(b), Explosive Act, 1884 and Under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive substances Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and dropped the trials against them for want of valid sanction for prosecution Under Sections 7 of the Act.3. Now briefly the facts. In Haraish Chandra's case the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Raj., Jaipur submitted the challan against the accused for the offence Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-04-1994
Reported in : 1(1994)ACC532
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The question involved, in this petition, relates to the right of a person, to obtain a Stage Carriage or Contract Carriage (including temporary) permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') or a special permit under Sub-section (8) of Section 88 to ply a public service vehicle on routes or portions thereof in respect of which a scheme approved under Section 100(3) of the Actor Section 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Old Act') providing exclusive operation of stage or contract carriages on the said routes by a State Transport Undertaking to the complete exclusion of all other persons has been brought into force. This question arose on issuing permits at the time of Keladevi fair. The prayer made in the writ petition may be reproduced as under:It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-05-1994
Reported in : 1994(1)WLN1
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All the three writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions the facts given in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Slate of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2141 of 1991 are taken into consideration:3 The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order dated 30.6.1990 may be declared illegal and be quashed and the petitioner be allowed to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years or till 30th June following thereafter. In the alternative, it is prayed that in case for allowing the petitioner to continue upto 60 years of age and the provisions contained in Rule 3 (16) of the Grant-in-Aid Rules which fixes the age of superannuation as 58 years of the Teachers working in Government aided school or colleges., comes in the way of the petitioner then to this extent the same may be declared illegal and be struck down.4. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-06-1994
Reported in : 1994(1)WLN388
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the assessee, which is a private limited Company, challenges the demand of Rs. 3,06,60,879.89 raised by the District Excise Officer, Alwar (respondent No. 3) to be invalid and illegal and has, therefore, prayed to quash the Demand Notice dated July 9, 1991 (Annexure 5). The circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition may be narrated:2. The Company was manufacturing patent/proprietary medicines containing alcohol having its manufacturing unit in RIICO industrial Area, Bhiwadi in Alwar District. It had started production of pharmaceutical formations by using alcohol from August 27, 1987, and was paying excise duty to the State of Rajasthan. It is stated that the Company has stopped manufacturing medicines for the time being from August, 1992 for the reasons mentioned in para 11 of the writ petition. The products of the Company were liable to excise duty under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-11-1994
Reported in : [1994]81CompCas925(Raj); 1994(1)WLN532
N.L. Tibrewal, J. 1. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners challenge the Criminal Complaint No. 47 of 1991, pending against them, before the Special Court of the Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the offence under Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Companies Act'). At the relevant time, all the four petitioners are said to be the directors of Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminates Ltd., incorporated under the Companies Act. Mr. P.C. Maheshwari was the managing director of the said company.2. The non-petitioner, i.e., Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, filed a complaint under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act for committing default in complying with the requirements of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 220. Sub-sections (1) and (2) require three copies of balance-sheet, etc., to be filed with the Registrar, within the stipulated time mentioned therein. Sub-section (3) provide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-11-1994
Reported in : 1994(1)WLC461; 1994(1)WLN34
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the Consumer Protection Forum, District Ajmer, which has passed the impugned order dated 21.10.92 has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of a member of co-operative society with regard to cancellation of his membership and consequently non-allotment of land.2. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides under Section 3 that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The jurisdiction of the District Forum has been prescribed Under Section 11 which provides to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed, does not exceed rupees one lakh then a complaint can be instituted in a district forum. Under Section 17 the jurisdiction of the State Commission was to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed excee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-18-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Raj1; 1994(1)WLN89
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioners to join the training course of laboratory technician at the place opted by them.2. This writ petition has been filed by three persons espousing the same cause. The Medical and Health Department advertised the training course of the laboratory technician and for that they invited applications from the candidates who have passed secondary examination in the Scheme of 10 + 2 as recognised by the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioners applied for this course. The petitioner No. 1 passed secondary examination with Mathematics and other subjects viz., Biology and two science subjects i.e. Physics and Chemistry. The petitioner No. 2 passed secondary examination in the desired subjects i.e. Biology, Physics and Chemistry. The petitioner No. 3 also passed secondary examination in Biology, Chemistry and Physics. All the three petitioners applied for the course ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-24-1994
Reported in : (1995)ILLJ292Raj; 1994(1)WLN231
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. Since the aforesaid two writ petitions raise a common question of law and the facts of both these writ petitions are almost the same excepting the name of the respondent No. 3 and the duration of their service period, as such these writ petitions are decided by this common judgment by dealing with the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1796 of 1991.2. The petitioners, by this writ petitions, havechallenged the order dated January 1, 1991, passed by the Authority appointed under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Bikancr Region, Bikaner, by which the learned Authority allowed the applications filed by the non-petitioners Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and quashed the order dated August 21, 1986, passed by petitioner M/s. Rajmata Badheliji Surdanshan Kumariji of Bikaner Trust, Junagarh, Bikaner (for short, 'the Trust'),terminating the services of the applicants Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and directing the non-applica...
Tag this Judgment!