Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-28-2003
Reported in : 2004(177)ELT133(Raj); RLW2004(1)Raj246; 2003(4)WLC418
Singh, C.J.1. Reference has been made to us by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, to consider the following question of law:'Whether the explosive used in the respondents' mines situated outside the premises of their cement factory, for the purpose of excavating limestone as raw material for manufacture of cement, can be considered as inputs (as used in relation to the manufacture of cement) eligible for Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944'.2. The facts giving rise to the Reference are as follows:3. The respondent company manufactures cement in it's factory located in Udaipur. One of the raw materials for manufacture of cement is Limestone. The respondent obtained Limestone from mines owned by it. It used duty paid explosives to extract Limestone from the mines. It is not disputed that the Limestone so extracted was exempt from payment of excise duty by reason of exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-21-2003
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj648; [2004]137STC326(Raj); 2003(2)WLC398; 2003(1)WLN462
Calla, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the order dated 24th Nov., 2001 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of assessment in the matter of Sales Tax has been dismissed as not maintainable by the learned Single Judge on the ground that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. The parties are not at dispute that the remedy under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is there so as to challenge the order passed by the Assessing Officer against the order of assessment.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the remedy of the appeal as aforesaid is coupled with an onerous condition of depositing the amount as assessed by the Assessing Officer under the Sales Tax Act and, therefore, unless the due amount is deposited, the appeal cannot be entertained. It is also the case of the appellant that he is not in a position even t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-09-2003
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1995; RLW2003(2)Raj752; 2003(2)WLC461; 2003(1)WLN467
Joshi, J. 1. The instant Criminal Revision No. 1016 is against the order of the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur passed on 26.10.2002 in Sessions Case No. 59/2000. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge had ordered to frame charges against the accused-persons under Section 285, 286, 304 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are that the Station House Officer, Surajpole, Udaipur got a Parcha Bayan recorded on 20.11.1999 that Macsen Laboratories situated at Tekri, Udaipur has caught fire. Before he reached the said laboratory, the fire had already been extinguished. He found the body of a burnt person in a room of the said laboratory. The said labourer was working at Distillator machine. The deceased Naval Ram Gameti and Lalooram had put the Toluene oil in the machine and there were toluene fumes which are inflammable. The labourer went inside the room to make the switch off of the machine and died inside the room. As per site report,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-17-2003
Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1569; 2004(2)WLC532
Gupta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned lower appellate court has dismissed the plaintiff's suit for fixation of stand rent, which was decreed by the learned trial court.3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for determination of standard rent of the suit premises, alleging interalia that the suit premises were let out on 7.5.1953 at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- per month to Nandlal, who expired on 28.12.1986, and since then, the defendants are carrying on the business as his legal representatives, that the rents of the adjoining premises have increased leaps and bounds, and even if the premises are let out today, they could fetch a rent of Rs. 1500/-per month. Since the premises were let out for commercial purposes, on the basis of rent as on 1.1.1962 being Rs. 100/-, the standard rent is required to be determined at Rs. 250/- per month. The defendants contested the suit interalia on the ground that ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-28-2003
Reported in : II(2004)BC331; [2004]120CompCas470(Raj); (2004)4CompLJ271(Raj); [2004]49SCL250(Raj)
ORDERY.R. Meena, J.1. In D.B. Writ Petition No. 6735/99, the petitioner has prayed that respondent SEBI be directed to withdraw their instructions dated 10-12-1999 and also quash the letter dated 30-11-1999 issued by respondent No. 2 addressed to petitioner No. 1 and further prayed that provisions of Section 11AA and Sub-section (IB) of Section 12 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1992') be declared ultra vires the Constitution of India insofar as it includes 'Collective Investment Schemes'. The petitioner has further prayed that Regulations [Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations, 1999') be declared ultra vires the Constitution of India being inconsistent with and in derogation of the Companies Act, 1956 and these Regulations should not be given effect.2. In D.B. Writ Petition No. 6747/1999, the validity of similar provisions are c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-21-2003
Reported in : RLW2004(1)Raj66; 2004(2)WLC222
Prasad, J.1. The facts and controversy involved in this bunch of petitions is common and therefore, for the sake of arguments, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4694/2003 'Jafer Ahmed v. J.N.V. University, are taken into consideration.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the tests for Rajasthan Pre Medical and Rajasthan Pre Veterinary, examinations were conceived, for the guidance of the student, an information booklet was published. It has been produced with the petition annexure 1. This booklet was published having information about the modalities of admission process. In this booklet at page 17 mode of admission has been delineated which reads as under:The merit list of the successful and eligible candidate of RPMT/PVT-2003 shall be prepared category-wise. These successful and eligible candidates will be admitted in order of merit in General as well as reserved category up to the seats available in that category except the seats belonging to Category (a) of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-19-2003
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2190; RLW2004(4)Raj2224; 2004(2)WLC601
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 17-1-2001 passed by the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 93/98 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months.2. It arises in the following circumstances:--On 8-10-1998 at about 10.30 a.m., PW-5 Premraj gave a parcha bayan Ex, P/5 before PW-14 Khinv Singh Bhati, SHO, Police Station, Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that his sister Radha Devi aged about 30 years (hereinafter referred to as deceased No. 1) was married with the accused-appellant about 12-13 years back and because of that wedlock, deceased No. 1 had three children; one boy Naresh, aged about 11 years, another boy Vinod aged about 6 years and daugh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-15-2003
Reported in : 2004CriLJ1606; 2003(4)WLC616
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The appellant was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 24/96 for having committed murder of Parma Devi. Learned Trial Judge vide judgment dated July 3, 1997 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :--Under Section 302, IPC to undergo Imprisonment forlife and fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to furthersuffer Three months' Simple Imprisonment.Under Section 452, IPC to undergo Six Months'Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to furthersuffer One Month Simple Imprisonment,Under Section 324/34, IPC to undergo Six Months'Rigorous Imprisonmentand fine of Rs. 200/-in default to further suffer One Month SimpleImprisonment. All the sentences were ordered torun concurrently.2. As per written report Ex. P-18 the incident occurred on May 13, 1993 around 4.30 p.m. and the police station Laxmangarh registered a case against the appellant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 323 and 379, IPC. The appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-13-2003
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj1208; 2004(2)WLC146
B. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Present writ petitions have been filed by the sons of Late Ram Chandra alias Chandriya by caste Mali, resident of Khema Ka Kuwa, Jodhpur. Petitioners claim that they had cultivatory possession of Khasra No. 125 and 123 situated in Village Suthala, Tehsil & District Jodhpur. In Khasra No. 125, they had 16 bighas and 11 Biswas and in Khasra No. 123, they had 9 Bighas land. In the record of 1943 A.D., the ancestors of the petitioners were recorded as tenants. Ram Chandra, father of the petitioners died on Jeth Sud 9 Svt. Year 2027 (corresponding to 1970 approximately) and the petitioners continued to be in cultivatory possession of the land as khatedar tenants.3. Petitioners filed a suit on 11.2.1981 for declaration of khatedari rights and injunction. Notices issued under Section 91 of The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has also been challenged. These notices have been exhibited in the writ petition. These notices give a clear sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-12-2003
Reported in : (2004)186CTR(Raj)52; [2004]267ITR398(Raj)
RAJESH BALIA, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dt. 28th Aug., 2002. The Tribunal has decided three appeals for asst. yrs. 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 in relation to same assessee by a common order. This appeal relates to asst. yr. 1987-88. It was an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal.3. The appellant has suggested that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition on account of interest chargeable on the debit balances of (i) M/s Jai Mangal Investment and Trading Go. and (ii) M/s Banswara Textile Mills Ltd. on the group that the debit balances were trade debts, ignoring the fact that both the companies are owned by the same group of persons and non-charging of interest is not due to their poor financial position but in fact...
Tag this Judgment!