Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1015Raj; 1993(1)WLC161; 1992(2)WLN365
Mathur, J.1. These writ petitions involve common question of law and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Union of India (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1935 of 1991) are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner is a Corporation established with a view to regulate the purchase and sale of raw and processed cotton, their storage and transportation. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the orders Annexures 2 and 3 may be quashed and the provisions of Section 5 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1952') may be struck down.4. In order to appreciate the controversy, which has been raised in this writ petition and the other similar writ petitions, it will be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act of 1952. Sub-section (3) of S.I. lays do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992WLN(UC)206
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The brief facts and circumstances in which the present petition has been filed may be summarised as follows:2. In the town of Blkaner, three tharltable Institutions/projects were being run. One is Mathura Bai Fatechand Daman Maternity Home, which was established in the year 1959 and is situated in ground floor of a building situated at Naya Shar of Bikaner. This Institution is registered as a 'public trust', under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The institution is run by trustees of a Trust, known as S.R. Damani Medical Trust, Bombay, which is founded by one Madan Gopal Chandmal Damani under indenture dated 28th December, 1970. The founder-trustees of this Trust are-Suraj Ratan Fatehchand Damani, Ratan Bai Suraj Ratan Damani and Madan Gopal Chandmal Damani. The primary object of the Trust, as is suggested in the name itself, is related with relief to poor in the field of medical assistance and related matters, in general and, with specific direction to expend s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(3)WLC205; 1992WLN(UC)360
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Seth Motilal College, Jhunjhunu, is an educational institution at Jhunjunu, and it is managed by Shri Jhootalal Educational Society. The Government of the State of Rajasthan grants 90 per cent financial aid to this institution.2. On the basis of an application dated 2nd June/86, made by the petitioner, Chandra Prakash Chaturvedi, and personal interview on 3rd Oct.,'86, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science, in Seth Motilal College, Jhunjhunu (for short, 'the College', hereinafter), on a temporary basis, with effect from the date he joined his duties till the last date of the current session 1986-87. It was specified in the appointment-letter (Annex. 1) that the appointment would be subject to the approval of the current session 1986-87. It was specified in the appointment by the Director of College Education, Rajasthan and University of Rajasthan, and the rules & regulations of the institution in force, or which might be enacted ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(2)WLN113
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All these special appeals involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the convenient disposal of all these appeals, the facts given in the case of R.L. Goyal v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 405 of 1992 are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner is an existing operator of the existing route Bharatpur to Basedi and holds one non-temporary stage carriage permit which is valid upto 20.11.1994. A draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1939') was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 25.7.1986 inviting objections with regard to the aforesaid route. Formerly the Special Secretary (Home) was hearing the objections but vide notification dated 17.9.1990 the Secretary, Transport Department Rajasthan, Jaipur was appointed to hear and decide the objections. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and a new Act, na...
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 : I(1993)DMC62
V.S. Dave, J.1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a First Information Report Ex. P. 3 was lodged at police station Kotwali, Alwar on llth August, 1989 by one Jivatram, PW 4, at 12.30 p.m. wherein it was alleged that be was staying in Jaipur, his sister Smt. Gopi was married six years before with Lila Ram (accused) son of Vishan Dass of Kherthal. Ever since after the marriage Lila Ram, his mother, father, brother Lalchand, cousin Sattu and his sister all used to harass her for not bringing dowry and used to pass sarcastic remarks. They also used to treat her with physical cruelty. Fifteen months before Gopi and her husband Lila Ram both came to Jaipur and settled down there. There also he used to beat Gopi and asked her to bring money from his place. Four months before Lila Ram alongwith his cousin Sattu overnight shifted his goods and children to Kherthal leaving behind Gopi. After the pursuation of the relations a couple of months before Gopi was dropped at Lilaram's pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1994]206ITR222(Raj); 1993(3)WLC416
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In all these petitions, common questions of law are involved and, hence, they are disposed of by a common order. In all the petitions, the petitioners are the same and they have prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act').2. Non-petitioner No. 2, viz., Deputy Commissioner, Assessment-I, Income-tax, Jaipur, filed eight separate complaints against the petitioners on December 21, 1988, for the offence under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Act which pertains to the assessment year 1987-88. The accusation against the petitioners is that they had deducted income-tax at source on the interest amount paid by them under Section 194A of the Act, but did not pay/deposit the same to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time as required under Section 200 of the Act read with rule 30(1)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. As per th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993ACJ1211; 1992(2)WLN620
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the award dated 12.9.1988, passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, awarding a sum of Rs. 77,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 (in appeal No. 333 of 1988) jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its payment. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. As per the facts mentioned in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 333 of 1988, Daulat Ram, aged 24 years, was going home after his duties in the Secretariat and he was dashed by jeep No. RSL 5609 belonging to the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Kalyan Singh, driver. The claimants are mother of the deceased, wife of the deceased and daughter of the deceased who preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (in short 'the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(2)WLC618; 1992(2)WLN185
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated December 2, 1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, which was modified on 16.12.1991 in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 77 of 1991, whereby the learned Single Judge has accepted by writ petition filed by the petitioner respondent No. 1 Shri Khem 'Chand Sharma and following directions were issued to non-petitioner-appellant:(i) to grant an ordinary time scale of Rs. 5100-150-5700-200-6300 to all RHJS Officers w.e.f. 13.8.1987.(ii) to grant a Selection Scale of Rs. 5900-2-6700 to RHJS Officers w.e.f. 01/9.1988.(iii) to grant Supertime Scale of Rs. 7300-7600 to seven officers of the RHJS from amongst those who are already in Selection Scale w.e.f. 1.1.1992 and post them as District Judges at five Divisional Headquarters other than Jaipur and two at Jaipur: one for Jaipur City and another for Jaipur District.According to the non-petitioner-ap...
Tag this Judgment!