Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1988]71STC204(Raj); 1988(1)WLN625
M.C. Jain, J. 1. The revision petitions mentioned in the Schedule annexed with this order raise a common question of law, so, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. These revisions are directed against the orders of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer whereby the order of the assessing authority and of the appellate authority imposing penalty under Section 5C(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 have been set aside and it has been held that the articles purchased by the assessees are the 'raw materials' and the department is estopped to challenge that the articles mentioned in the registration certificates are not the 'raw materials'.3. It would be proper to consider the facts of the case of M/s. Lodha Fabrics, Pali in S. B. Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 332 of 1987, 333 of 1987 and 334 of 1987. In these cases, the assessee purchased caustic soda and soda ash in different accounting periods for varying amounts. The assessing authority held that out of the quantity of raw ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)457
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Pratapgarh dated January 30, 1976 affirming the preliminary decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Pratapgarh dated May 1, 1971 whereby the latter had decreed Civil Suit No. 64 of 1966 instituted by the plaintiffs for possession of their portion in a 'haveli' and shop situated in Sadar Bazar, Mochi Para, Chhittorgarh after taking accounts of the income derived by the appellants from the share of the plaintiffs' property.2. Facts leading to the filling of this second appeal are that on April 4, 1966, the plaintiffs-respondents instituted Civil Suit No 64 of 1966 against Chhaganlal and his son Niranjan Lal Chhaganlal died during the pendency of the suit. His son Niranjan Lal was already on record and his widow Smt. Alil Bai was also substituted as his legal representative. The plaintiffs-respondents alleged in the plaint that the parties alongwith Udailal and Bhanwar La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990LC375(Rajasthan); 1991(52)ELT18(Raj)
S.N. Bhargava J.1. These writ petitions involve similar facts and questions of law, so they are being disposed of by a common order. Taking the facts of Writ Petition No. 1849/1989.2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has got several units throughout the country, out of which two units, known as Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries and Shri Ram Fertilizer and Chemicals, are located at Kota, in the State of Rajasthan. Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries has been manufacturing P.V.C. Resin, P.V.C. Compound, P.V.C. Compound MBs, Caustic Soda etc. It has been regularly paying all the demands and dues under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner has been selling nearly 70% of its manufactured articles at the factory gate and the remaining nearly 30% through its various depots at Ahmedabad, Calcutta, Delhi, Indore, Nasirabad, Kundi, Ludhiana, Madras and Meera. The excise duty is being paid regularly. For the first time, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990(2)WLN530
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These two petitions: one filed by Jodhpur University Temporary Teachers Forum (for short 'the Forum' and the other filed by one Shri Mohan Swaroop Mahesh wari Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Member of syndicate, University of Jodhpur, Jodhpur raise certain common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. Succinctly stated the facts of the writ petition No. 2916 of 1990, filed by the Fourm are: that the members of the petitioner fourm are serving this University for the past some years. In order to safeguard their rights and to have the bargains and for obtaining better conditions of service from the University of Jodhpur, this forum was constituted by the temporary teachers of the Jodhpur University.3. It was contended that qualifications for confirming. Teaching Staff of the Jodhpur University are provided and regulated by Ordinance 317 of the Jodhpur University and those qualific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(2)WLC597; 1991(1)WLN237
M.R. Calla, J.1. These three cases involve common questions of law and facts and hence we propose to decide all these three cases by this common judgment.2. The facts of these cases present a typical lis between the in-serving Engineers seeking appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment and the Engineer graduates in the open market who are also seeking appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment. This Us between the candidates of two different types both seeking direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers has engaged the attention of this Court because of the dismal fact that although the scheme of the Rules, namely, the Rajasthan Service Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to the Rules of 1954) provides for both the names of recruitment on the post of Assistant Engineer i.e. by direct recruitment as well as promotion, there has been no direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Eng...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993CriLJ3193; 1993(3)WLC569
N.L. Tibrewal, J. 1. This Larger Bench is required to answer the following questions of law referred to it:-i) Whether composition of offence/offences, except as provided by Section 320 Cr. P.C., can be permitted in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., specially when Sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C. expressly prohibits;ii) If the answer is given in affirmative, whether this permission can be granted after the conviction of the accused under the offence/ offences which is/are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. The necessity to answer second question shall arise only if question No. 1 is decided in the affirmative.2. The relevant facts necessitating the reference are:The petitioner-Mohan Singh was convicted and sentenced by the trial Magistrate under Section 326 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- vide judgment dated March 29, 1985 for causing grievous injury to Gulab Singh. He preferred an appeal which was pending for disposal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ1066Raj; 1993(1)WLC641
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. An interesting question which arises for determination in this Revision Petition is as to whether jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes or District Court to hear Appeals against an order passed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short 'the Act of 1936') by a competent authority stands excluded by virtue of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'). 2. An application under Section 15(2) of1936 Act was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Authority appointed under the Act of 1936, Sawaimadhopur, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,42,874.12. Respondent No. 2 alleged that he has unlawfully been deprived of the benefits flowing from his retrospective promotion to the higher post. 3. After hearing the parties, the Authority appointed under the Act of 1936 passed an order dated August 31, 1990 under Section 15(3) ofthe Act and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,55,278.91 towards wages alongwith one time p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993(67)ELT483(Raj)
Rajesh Bhalla, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm, having an industry of re-rollers, manufacturing stainless steel product known as 'Patta'. The product manufactured by the petitioner was initially classified as 'sheet' or 'strips', falling under Sub-item (ii) of the Tariff Item No. 26AA of the Tariff Schedule, as it was then existing, under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1944'). The petitioner claimed that the product manufactured by it properly fall to be classified under Sub-item No. (ia) of the erstwhile Tariff Item No. 26AA. The petitioner based his claim on a decision given in the case of M/s. CD. Industries, by the Appellate Tribunal on 1-6-1984 and in the case of M/s. Ae Vee Iron & Steel Works Private Limited, Bombay, dated 29-5-1985. The Assessing Authority, namely, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jodhpur, rejected the assessee-petitioner's claim. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ1143Raj; 1993(1)WLC678
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Of these four writ petitions, Writ Nos. 433/82 and 1025/82 arise out of Award dated January 20, 1982 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kota in Reference Case No. 89/78 and Writ Nos. 434/82 as well as 1039/82 arise out of Award dated January 20, 1982 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kota given in Reference Case No. 90/78. Although these four writ petitions relate to two workmen, Shri Makhanlal Gupta and Shri Har Prasad Saxena, the facts of all the cases relate to one common incident and the questions which have been raised in these writ petitions are identical. I am, therefore, disposing of all the four petitions by a common order.2. Facts which are necessary for the decision of these four writ petitions are that Makhanlal Gupta was appointed as Head Jobber in the service of Rajasthan Textile Mills Ltd. Bhawani-mandi, a Unit of M/'s. Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Har Prasad Saxena was appointed as Ring Sider in the service of Rajasthan Textile...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993CriLJ3776
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In all these bail applications under Section 439, Cr. P. C., important questions of law of general importance have been raised, which also involve interpretation of Sections 36A and 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (In short, The Act' or 'NDPS Act'). The questions may be formulated as under:-1. Whether under the proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure an accused can claim bail as of right if Charge-sheet is not filed after completion of investigation within 90/60 days?2. If so, whether the right can be claimed even after the filing of charge-sheet?3. Whether provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act override Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and bail cannot be granted unless conditions contained in clauses (i) & (ii) of Section 37(1)(b) are satisfied ?2. In all the three bail applications the accused persons were arrested under Section 8/18 and 8/19 NDPS Act but Cognizance by t...
Tag this Judgment!