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. 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. 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. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.2. This revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994') is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No.173/2005/Baran, whereby the appeal of petitioner was dismissed.3. Briefly stated the facts of the revision petition are that on 30.06.1999 vehicle No. HR-46/A-0179 was checked by the authorized officer. The vehicle driver and in charge of the goods produced the documents and it was found that Form 18(C) was necessary to be accompanied with the goods in question, but it was not accompanied therefore not produced. A notice to show cause was given to vehicle driver under Section 78(2) read with Rule 53. In response to the show cause notice, owner of the goods/respondent appeared and filed its reply, wherein it was stated that due to inadvertence the Declaration Form 18(C) could not be sent along with the goods.4. The Assessing...
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. The case in hand is a chequered story and the prosecution case unfolds a pathetic chilling and sinister phenomenon whereby the life of a person was eliminated from this worldly scene and consigned to the heavenly abode by putting an end to his innocent life simply in a bid to exercise the powers of Police officials misused by them on the people in custody. The appellants before us are four Police officers of the rank of SHO and constables named Raju singh, Rajesh Kailash and Khem singh who have preferred their respective appeals against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Jhalawar in Sessions case No.32/2003 (78/2001, 18/2000 & 4/2000), whereby they were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/331/348/201 alternatively under Sections 302/331/348/201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were sentenced as under:- i)For the offence under Section 302/302 read with Section 34 of the IPC with imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. This revision petition has been filed by the assessee under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 being aggrieved by the order of learned Tax Board dated 16/8/2004 allowing the Revenue's appeal and setting aside the order of first appellate authority dated 22/8/2000, whereby, the said first appellate authority Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur allowed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 37 of the Act and allowed the application for rectification dated 29/2/2000 filed by the assessee, which was rejected by order dated 13/3/2000 of Assessing Authority.2. The learned Tax Board in its impugned order dated 16/8/2004 has held that question raised by the assessee in his application for rectification under Section 37 of the Act that the commodity manufactured and sold by him namely;P.U.Resin (Polyurethane Resin) was taxable only at the rate of 10% in residuary Entry and not at the rate of 16% under Entry No.91 of the Noti...
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. 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!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
(1) With the closure of their stone crushers, with the threat to their right to livelihood, the petitioners, the owners of the stone crushers, have rushed to this Court for protection. Since through these petitions, the petitioners have challenged two orders, both dated 04.02.2010, passed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board ('the Board', for short), these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, the facts from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2593/2010, M/s Bahubali Stone Crusher v. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, are being narrated hereinafter.(2) It is the case of the petitioner-firm that it had established an industrial unit for production of grit stone at village Bolkhera, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur. The petitioner-firm was not only duly registered with the Board, but vide order dated 15.05.2004, the Board had granted the consent to operate to the petitioner-firm for its unit. The said consent was valid till 30.04.2...
Tag this Judgment!