Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2439
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. As common questions of law of considerable significance are involved in both these petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. these are disposed of by this common order.2. In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petn. No. 215 of 1997 Mukesh petitioner is alleged to have been found on 26-3-1989 keeping in his possession in a godown at 22, Godowns Factory Area, Jaipur 15 drums containing different kinds of petroleum products like mobile oil, greese liquid and black-hard and solid black oil, soap wash etc. with certain instruments and utensils to be used in preparing adulterated petroleum products. He was possessing no license to deal in petroleum products. He was, therefore, accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oil and Greese Order 1987 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (The Act). A police report under Section 170/173, Cr. P.C. was made against him to the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Cases on 1 -3-1993 and on the same day the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ608Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC1
Verma, J. 1. Admittedly the petitioner's Establishment in both the above writ petitions are fully covered under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as the Act). The Bonus Act has been enacted as a welfare measure to the working class employed in certain establishments and the employees are entitled to the bonus on the basis of the production or productivity or profit and for the matters connected therewith. The bonus is regarded as a deferred wage payable to the employees which can be claimed by them as a matter of right under the provisions of the Bonus Act. Statutory liability for payment of bonus to employees (sic) employed in establishment is also caused on the employer. Bonus is to be paid by the employer in the accounting year in accordance with the provisions of the Act after calculating the allocable surplus. Under Section 8 of the Bonus Act, every employee is entitled to be paid the bonus by the employer in the accounting year in accordance wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1997Raj217; 1997(1)WLC218; 1996(2)WLN328
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. In the instant writ petition petitioner questions impugned order dated 29-6-96. Anx. 2, passed by the Chancellor nominating Dr. S. L, Verma, Retired Professor (Department of Political Science) of University of Rajasthan, as his nominee in the syndicate of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur thereinafter referred as respondent University )w.e.f. 28-6-96 for a period, three years in supersession of his earlier order dated 15-9-95 a communication whereof is filed and marked as Anx. I.2. The genesis of challenge of the validity of the impugned order terminating petitioner stunure as nominated member of Syndicate of the respondent University before expiry of the period of three years is based on grounds inter-alia that power of the Chancellor to nominate a member of Syndicate under clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of Jai Narain Vyas University Jodhpur Act, 1962 thereinafter referred as Act No. 17 of 1962) stands exhausted with nomination of the petitioner.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1997]225ITR1032(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated February 26, 1986, in respect of the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 of Abdul Karim Stone Contractor and for 1982-83 in the case of Raj. Flooring Stone Co. and Agarwal Flooring Stone Co. Kota :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow extra depreciation and investment allowance for dumpers which claim had not been put up by the assessees before the Income-tax Officer but was for the first time taken by them before the Commissioner of Income-tax in proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act ?'All the three matters are being disposed of by this common order as the question involved is common.2. The dispute in the present matter relates to the claim for depreciation on dumpers owned by the assessees. They derived income from owning of mines, extracting stones...
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!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 : 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)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 : 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 : 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!