Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR595]; (2003)ILLJ256Raj; RLW2003(3)Raj1996; 2003(1)WLC47
..... has drastically changed the situation. in the words of chinnappa reddy, j. speaking for the court: 'act 36 of 1964 has drastically changed the position. section 2(eee) has been repealed and section 25-b(2) now begins with the clause 'where a workman is not in continuous service for a period of one year'. these changes brought about by act ..... date section 25-f of the act of 1947 is not attracted. 16. this contention, in our opinion, is not justified. 17. in fact prior to section 25-b was amended in 1964 vide act no. 36 of 1964 w.e.f. december 19, 1964, while interpreting the provision as initially enacted the supreme, court in sur enamel and stamping works .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj155; 2003(1)WLN371
..... relevant because now we have a high court of bangalore in karnataka and the mysore high court does not exist. the manipur court-fees (amendment and validation) act, 1953 has also become redundant and the slate govt. has also conveyed its no objection to the proposal to repeal this act. for the repeal of the goa, daman and diu judicial commissioner's court (declaration ..... had become obsolete, redundant and was no longer required to be on the statute book. for the repeal of bombay high court (letters patent) act, 1866, it was stated that this act was introduced to correct two clerical errors and subsequently, by virtue of amendments made in 1948, that no longer serves the purpose. as regards the unclaimed deposits act, 1866 and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(3)WLN122
..... grounds taken by the petitioner is tenable in eye of law because of the reasons that it is wrong to say that rajasthan land acquisition act, 1953 stood impliedly repealed. the petitioner society has utterly failed to point out any repugnancy whatsoever. moreover, admittedly the petitioner filed its objections against the acquisition on 29th december, 1987 and ..... reported in 1995(1) lal 83 (raj); air 1975 allahabad 202; 1999 (1) lacc 73 raj. db; 1999 (1)lacc 559 (raj); 1999(1) lacc 457 karnataka.44. mr. s.m. mehta, advocate gerneral appearing on behalf of the state of rajasthan, in support of his contentions placed reliance on the judgment reported in rlr 1989(1 ..... shall be deemed to have been extended upto the date of such declaration or award. in a proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the land acquisition (rajasthan amendment) ordinance, 1986, such period or periods shall be deemed to have been extended upto and the declaration or the award, as the case may shall be made within .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj2366; 2004(5)WLC181
..... of ordinance no. 1 of 2004 and sub-section (2-b) inserted in section 30 fail.conclusions:(1) the legislative power of the state to make or to repeal or to amend an existing law within its legislative field falling within sub-clause (a) to (e) of article 31a remain unimpaired by 1st proviso to article 31a.(2) the law ..... state:provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent parliament from enacting at any time any law with re-spect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the legisla-ture of the state.97. while the condition envisaged under article 304 of the constitution falls in clause (a) of proviso ..... not save such law, if subsequent to making of such law by the stale legislature, the parliament enacts a law with respect to same matter by adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the legislature of the state. thus, we have provision under the constitution where a law made by the state legislature is repugnant to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(1993)ACC193; AIR1993Raj38; 1993(1)WLC86
..... against the weight of these observations made by the hon'ble supreme court it is not proper to accept the view taken by the learned single judge of the karnataka high court. it is not necessary that an officer, who is appointed to hear the objections though he may be an ex officio director of the corporation would ..... the rajasthan motor vehicles rules, 1988, whereas the motor vehicles rules, 1990 have come into force on 16-7-1990. therefore, the publication of the scheme under the repealed rules is also bad.7. learned counsel next submitted that the scheme suffers from bias also as the objections were heard by the secretary, transport department, government of rajasthan ..... state government formulating such proposal deem fit. the idea is that previously the scheme used to be formulated by the state transport undertaking but by virtue of this amendment in the act of 1988 it is the state government which shall formulate the scheme if it deems fit that it will be in the interest of justice to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(1985)ACC1; AIR1986Raj101; [1986]59CompCas714(Raj); 1985(2)WLN240
..... when he receives bodily injury or death while accompanying the goods or without goods in a goods vehicle which he hires from the owner of the vehicle. bombay, karnataka, gujarat, orissa. kerala and allahabad high courts have taken the view that insurance company is statutorily liable to indemnify the owner of the goods also while punjab, ..... act being explicit the risk to passengers is not covered by the insurance policy. the provisions under the english road traffic act, 1960 were introduced by the amendment of sec. 95 of the indian motor vehicles act. the law asregards general exclusion of passengers is stated in halsbury's laws of england iii edition vol. ..... say that the motor vehicle (passenger insurance) act, 1971, made insurance cover for passenger liable to (liability?) compulsory by repealing paragraph (a) and the proviso of sub-section 203(4). but this act was repealed by the road traffic act, 1972 though under section 145 of 1972 act, the coming into force of the provisions of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2004]135STC117(Raj)
..... of section 11-b and latter is governed by sub-section (2). thus, very foundation of liability to interest which was payable under clause (a) of repealed section 11-b has been altered in sub-section (1) of substituted section 11-b.49. interpreting the provision as contended by learned counsel for respondent- ..... consequent to appeal was passed provided that where the assessment, reassessment or rectification order has already been passed before the commencement of the rajasthan sales tax (amendment) act, 1989, the order for levy of interest may be passed up to march 31, 1990. this provision makes it abundantly clear that payment of ..... order consequent to appeal was passed :provided that where the assessment, reassessment or rectification order has already been passed before the commencement of the rajasthan sales tax (amendment) act, 1989, the order for levy of interest may be passed up to 31st march, 1990. (3)..................'19. the substantive provision regarding levying of interest .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005ACJ1653; AIR2004Raj131
..... to do.'91. in g. giriyappa v. anantharai l. parekh, reported in (1994) 3 jt (sc) 214 : air 1994 sc 2307 while dealing with the case of karnataka rent control act, which again was a case of social legislation, dealing with the principle of interpretation of such legislation, it was observed in para 9 as under (para 8 ..... expression 'injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle' the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid amendment act of 1994, even if widest interpretation is given to the expression 'to any person' it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorised ..... or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. if the motor vehicles amended act of 1994 is examined, particularly section 46 of act 6 of 1994 by which expression 'injury to any person' in the original act stood substituted by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2568
..... v. manager, emjay high school (1998) 6 scc 674), st. stephen's college v. university of delhi (1992) 1 scc 558), t.m.a. pai foundation (ii) v. state of karnataka (1993) 4 scc 286) and state of h.p. v. nikku ram (1995) 6 scc 220).16. we have heard learned counsel for both the sides, at length, have gone .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(4)WLC591
..... fees on import of excisable article within the respective states. reference in this connection has been made to the practice followed in madhya pradesh, punjab, uttar pradesh, haryana, tamilnadu, karnataka, andhra pradesh, and maharashtra on these premise, the respondents have sought dismissal of the writ petition. lastly, it has been urged that even if they levy is invalid, ..... also included indian made beer at item no. 5 only permit for transport within the state of rajasthan was chargeable. this provision and rule 69-b was further amended vide impugned notification dated 2.11.1999 and indian made beer as well as imfl at entry 5 and 4 respectively were subjected to charge of permit fee for ..... 69-b a unified fees was charged for grant of permit for import, export or transport of excisable article mentioned in the table. however, later on by amending the table, the column no. 3 as originally framed was divided into three sub columns as will be apparent from the table as it stood prior to .....
Tag this Judgment!