Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLC456
R. Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was detained by order dated 20th June, 2001 made by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer Under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. This order has been made by recording satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on number or grounds.3. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner has been served with grounds of detention dated 22.6.2001 only but the original order of detention dated 20th June, 2001 and order of confirmation of detention order dated 26th June, 2001, were not served on the detenu at all and order of confirmation has been passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the detenu to make a representation before the State Government or the Board. In connection with this it was submitted by the petitioner that in the meeting of advisory Board the pet...
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 : 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
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 : 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
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
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN95
B.J. Shethna, J.1. It is stated in this present petition by the petitioner that on 5.5.1999 when the van of respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand Jhanwar carrying explosive substance in a huge quantity being unloaded in 'Nohra' of respondent No.2, at that time due to explosion two persons, Bheru and Sattar Khan received serious injuries. Out of them Bheru later on sccumbed to the injuries. The information about this incident was received by Shahpura, Police Station and on receiving the said information,' ASI Aziz Mohd. reached the place of incident and lodged FIR No. 107/99 with Shahpura Police Station for the offences punishable Under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and also Under Sections 286, 337, 338 IPC. However, SHO Madan Dan Singh investigated the case and filed challan Under Section 9B of the Explosive Act, 1884 against respondents No.2 and 3 accused and also for the offence Under Sections 286, 337, 338 and 304A IPC Accordingly, the learned Trial Magistrate took co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(4)WLC605; 2000WLC(Raj)UC359
Madan, J. (1). The petitioner has challenged the impugned sentence on the ground only confined to its inadequacy in this revision petition, Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying therein for awarding deterrent sentence to the respondent (accused) Sangram Singh, who was convicted Under Sections. 457, 458, 323 & 324 IPC but sentenced to undergo four months simple imprisonment under each count and was imposed with fine of Rs. 200/- each Under Section 457 & -158 IPC, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui (District Dausa) under Judgment dated 4.7.96 in Criminal Case No. 215/96 arising out of FIR No. 173/95 lodged on 8.5.1995 at Police Station Bandikui by complainant (petitioner) herein. The accused-respondent Sangram Singh who at the time of incident was duly armed with axe is alleged to have intruded into complainant's house at about 1 O'clock in the midnight thereof, whereupon his mother and sister who were sleeping in the chowk got awaken, and res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3959; 1998(1)WLN671
ORDERAmaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 28th March, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Revision No. 26-A/96, whereby the order dated 3rd June, 1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Original Case No. 22/95 under Section 133, Cr.P.C. was upheld.3. The facts of the case may be summarised as below :-On 2nd June, 1995, an application signed by Saleem and Ors. was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu. In this application, it was mentioned that the applicant's house was situated near Ramgarhia Darwaaja and about 9 ft.wide portion of the applicant's house was beyond the building line prescribed under Section 165 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and the applicant had vacated that portion of his house, it was also stated in the application that adjacent to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2493
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. Both these revision petitions are directed against the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in 24-2-94, allowing the revision application of the complainant by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, directed framing of charges against the applicant in each of these revisions.2. Facts giving rise to these petitions, stated briefly are that a First Information Report was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, by which respondent No. 2, who alleged that he got himself admitted to the Jodhpur Hospital and Research Centre, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, for treatment of his ailment of bleeding piles. During the course of his treatment he disclosed that he is a patient of diabetes and, should, accordingly be treated. On 21-4-92, he developed some pain in his back and was, therefore, referred to Dr. Narender Singh Yadav, applicant in Revision Petition No. 111 /94, as he was working in the orthopacdic Department of the Hosp...
Tag this Judgment!