Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 SHREE CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN DTD. 11.10.20111/105IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 Shree Cement Ltd. V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Judgment : 11th October 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr.S.Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bapna, Advocate General and Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Mathur, Lokesh Mathur, Mr.Sunil Beniwal, for the respondents. BY THE COURT -1. How negative executive interventions, lack of political will and wisdom can cause laggard, sluggish and distorted industrial growth in a State, though rich in minerals, lime stone in present case in the State of Rajasthan and sufferer is a cement manufacturing unit, will be borne out from what follows in this case. 2. Another caveat on legislative practices, particularly subordinate legislation and executive policy decisions and the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. This criminal appeal under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been filed against the order dated 07.05.2011 passed by the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency, Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the application (No.47/2011) for bail filed by the accused-appellant had been rejected. 2. The prosecution case was initiated on lodging of a First Information Report (No.85/2007), at Police Station Dargah, Ajmer for the offences under Section 302, 307, 323 and 295 IPC and also under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act. Thereafter, during the pendency of the investigation, which commenced after lodging of the said report, the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency, New Delhi by Government of India, vide order dated 01.04.2011. Therefore, the investigation in the present matter was conducted by the Agency from 06.04.2011 onwards and an F.I.R. (No.4/2011) came to be registered by the National Investigation Agency. 3. Later on an application for grant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Both, the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the award dated 19.06.2003, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,14,200/- and has apportioned the compensation amongst the appellant-claimant, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar, claimant-respondent, Smt. Suraj Parihar, respondent No.5, Mr. Raghav Parihar and respondent No.6, Smt. Bhawna Patel. Smt. Sangeeta Parihar has filed the appeal before this Court, while Mr. Raghav Parihar has filed the cross-objection. Since both the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the same award, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.1994, Mr. Ravindra Parihar and his wife, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar and an another lady, Smt. Aruna Swami, were travelling in a Fiat Car, bearing Registration No. RNI 45, from Bheror to Jaipur. Around 9:00 PM, when they reached near the village Aantela, one of the back tires was punctured. Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. This revision petition has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tax Board dtd.6.8.2002 rejecting its appeal against the order of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) dtd.8.5.2002 whereby both these Appellate Authorities held that the learned assessing authority was not justified in imposing penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,95,019/- on the ground that the declaration in Form ST-18A accompanying the other relevant documents like Sale Invoice, Bill of Entry, Transport Receipt etc. was found blank in respect of column No.2 to 9 of the said declaration in ST 18A.2. The learned Tax Board relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Jitendra and Co. reported in RLW 2000(4) Raj. 69 set aside the said penalty on the ground that since the documents disclosing all the particulars about the columns unfilled in the declaration were available at the time of checking itself, even though the said declaration had a few columns blank, it would be taken as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. These two revision petitions have been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order of learned Tax Board dated 23.04.2002 rejecting the Revenue's appeals against the assessee.2. Learned Tax Board by its impugned order upholding the order of first appellate authority dated 03.07.2000 held in favour of assessee, a registered dealer of computer and computer accessories and their parts, that goods in question, namely, CVT (Constant Voltage Transformer) and UPS (Uninterruptible Power Source) sold by the assessee are taxable @ 4% as accessories of computer and not under residuary entry @ 10% in the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The Assessing Authority had imposed 6% difference tax on these goods, namely, CVT(s) and UPS in the hands of the assessee by the impugned assessment orders, against which both the appeals by the higher appellate forum were decided in favour of assessee. Hence, these revision petitions at the instance of Revenue.3. Learned Tax Board in its impugned orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Since bunch of petitions involve common question, at joint request, they are being finally decided at admission stage. Controversy arises for consideration in regard to interpretation of amendment notification dt.25/07/1995 whereby explanation has been added for the post of Laboratory Technician ("Lab. Tech.") in Column No.4 against entries at Sl.No.4 under the head "GROUP-A-VI {Para Medical Cadre (Medical)} of Schedule-I appended to the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 ("Rules, 1965"). It is manifest from the record that since Year 2002 onwards, 9-months' Lab. Tech. training was substituted by 2-years training and academic qualification was changed from "Secondary" to Senior Secondary (Science); and thereafter, all applicants holding minimum academic qualification of Senior Secondary (Science), are holders of 2-Yrs' Lab. Tech. training from the institutions recognized by the Government and despite correspondence being made way back on 10/01/2003, the State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. On being charged with and convicted for the murder of four persons, namely; Manohar Singh, Nagu Singh, Inder Singh and Bapu Singh along with 22 other accused persons, the appellants have preferred this jail appeal against the judgment passed by the learned trial court on 13th February, 2004.2. Earlier, against the aforesaid impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, the accused Kalu Lal, Inder Singh, Bal Chand, Suresh, Ram Prasad and Shri Ram had filed an appeal (313/2004). Another appeal (339/2004) against the judgment of the learned trial court was filed by Prahlad Singh, Babulal, Bhagwan Singh, Amar Singh, Bapu Lal, Kanti Ram and Ram Prasad. Co-accused Prithvi Singh, Jagdish, Man Singh, Nand Ram and Prahad had filed a separate appeal (385/2004). Likewise, an appeal (428/2004) was preferred by Bahadur Singh, Tanwar Singh and Man Singh. A separate appeal (1096/2004) was filed by Prahlad Singh against the judgment passed by the learned trial court. Though the present appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Above mentioned two appeals have been preferred by 13 accused persons in all (12+1) against two judgments dated 13.3.2000 and 15.1.2002 passed in Sessions case Nos.3/1999 and 36/2001 respectively by the Court of Addl. District Judge No.1, Sikar, arising out of Ex.P/7written report lodged at P.S. Kotwali, Sikar on 12.9.1998 at 10.30 am for the incident allegedly occurred at 10.00 am on the same day in the business market place of Janki Nath Market where deceased Bhebharam's shop was situated. APPEAL NO.129/2000 2. Accused Jhabar Mal, Jagdish Prasad @ J.P., Mahendra, Bajrang Lal, Hari Ram, Raju @ Rajesh Kumar, Sharwan Kumar, Tara Chand, Mohan, Kishan Singh, Madan Lal & Rohitash Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar had been set up for trial in the first instance.3. Vide judgment dated 13.3.2000, the accused persons (appellants No.1 to 9 & 12) except accused Kishan Singh and Madan Lal (appellants No.10 & 11) had been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147,148, 302/149, 307/149, 326/14...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Instant petition has been filed by M/s BD & P Hotels (India) (P) Ltd who was in possession of Hotel Mukandgarh Resorts since 04/08/2009 on having purchased lease hold rights through respondent-6 (secured creditor) under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), but has been dispossessed on 09/03/2010 pursuant to warrant of possession issued by the Executing Court, Jhunjhunu on 05/03/2010 in Execution Appl.No.35/2009) at the behest of decree holder in execution of Arbitral Award dt. 15/02/2009 passed for recovery of possession and arrears along with interest against its lessee (respondent-5), possession whereof was taken over by secured creditor (TFCI-respondent-6) with whom lease hold rights were mortgaged creating security interest by respondent-5 with the consent of lessor (respondent-2 to 4) on 22/08/2008. Question arising for consideration in instant case is as to whether petitioner in whose favour lease hold...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Since on same set of facts, similar issues have been raised, all these writ petitions are decided by this common order. For the purpose of appreciating arguments of all the parties, we have taken D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4333/2010 - 21st Century Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others as leading writ petition with the consent of all the learned counsel for the parties.2. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-(i) The section 11(4) and section 11(B) of the Securities & Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short 'the SEBI Act') be declared invalid and ultra vires to the Constitution of India.(ii) The impugned order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 being illegal and arbitrary be quashed and set aside.(iii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and papers pertaining to the impugned order and i...
Tag this Judgment!