Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992WLN(UC)491
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Both these writ petitions contain more or less similar prayers. They are based on facts which are closely connected with each other. It is, therefore, proper to decide these two writ petitions by common order.2. Writ Petition No. 1199/92 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from proceeding further in the matter of detention of the petitioner under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and for restraining the respondents from creating false evidence to implicate the petitioner for detaining him under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he belongs to a family of Silver Smiths. He runs a shop under the name and style of M/s. Jamnalal Sarraf & Co. in Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur. Presently he is dealing with silver antique ornaments and he is not involved in any smuggling or a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998(3)WLC728; 1998(1)WLN584
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order/authorisation dated 11.3.1994 contained in Annexure F to the petition granted by the 'appropriate Government' under Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') authorising prosecution of the Management/petitioners under Sections 25T and 25U of the Act for alleged commission of certain unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) read with Schedule-V of the Act. The prosecution is assailed basically on the ground that unless there is an adjudication of the dispute and eligibility of the persons alleging the unfair labour practice, there cannot be authorisation for prosecution.2. The factual gamut of the case reveals that the respondent No. 3, 6 the General Secretary, Lake Palace Hotel Employees Union made an application to the respondent No. 1, the 'appropriate Government' for authorisation to file a complaint before the competent Court of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001ACJ950; 2001(2)WLC335; 2001(2)WLN286
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Since these four special appeals raise common questions and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The main contention raised in these special appeals is that where on account of a motor accident an employee of the owner of vehicle dies while on duty in the course of his employment, whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured in respect of claims arising out of such accident under Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act') even in respect of liability to pay interest and penalty on account of delayed payment of compensation under the provisions of the Act.3. The case of the insurance companies is that liability of the insurance companies in respect of claims arising under the provisions of the Act is only confined to the principal sum of compensation and they are not liable to indemnify the insured in respect of liability to pay the interest or penalty which arise because of the fault of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ748
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Can the court depend solely on the probity of investigation? Can criminal justice be made casualty for the wrongs committed by Investigating Officer? These are the pivotal questions springing up for consideration in the instant appeals, which have been preferred against the judgment dated December 13, 2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3 Bharatpur Camp Bayana by Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore, Susya @ Lokesh and Kalua @ Koshal Kishore, who were convicted and sentenced as under:Susya @ Lokesh:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore and Kalua @ Koshal Kishore:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The prosecution story is woven like this: On September 17, 1999 around 6.45 PM informant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1989CriLJ326; 1988(2)WLN60
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, Under Section 304A, I.P.C.2. This revision petition came up for admission. Learned single Judge (Mrs. Kapur, J.) was of the opinion that it does not call for any interference in revision with regard to the merits of the case but she admitted the revision petition on the ground of sentence in view of a decision of this Court in Amar Lal v. State of Raj. (S.B. Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 65/83, decided on 6-5-87 : (reported in 1988 Cri LJ 1). When this revision petition came up for final disposal before Hon'ble V. S. Dave, J. after hearing the arguments at length, he passed detailed order dated 27-7-87 referring the following question for consideration by the larger bench,Whether the decision in the aforesaid case lays down a general proposition that in all automobile accident cases there should not be a lesser punishment than one year's im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2009]176TAXMAN404(Raj)
ORDER1. These three appeals, arise in identical circumstances, and involved, common question of law, though arise from different orders of the ITAT. The appeal Nos. 56/07 and 105/06, arise out of the common judgment of the Tribunal, dated 25-1-2006, for the assessment years 1998-99 and 2000-01. whereas appeal No. 31 /2007, arise out of the judgment of the Tribunal, dated 9-6-2006 relating to the assessment year 2003-04. All the three appeals relate to same assessee. These appeals were admitted on different dates, framing substantial question of law, though in different language, however the substantial question of law, involved in all the three appeals is as under:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of interest earned by the respondent Bank on various loans extended to its employees from deposit of P.F. and Housing loan is eligible to be exempted under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, 1961.2. The necessary facts are that the assessee is a co-operative society...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SBCWP No.1211/2014 Bhanwar Lal vs. State & ors. a/w 6 connected matters Judgment dt:26/11/2014 1/83 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT (i) Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1211/2014 (ii) Rajendra Prasad Gora vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6249/2014. (iii) Tara Chand & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6250/2014 (iv) Ravindra Mohan Sharma vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6252/2014. (v) Balwant Singh vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6253/2014. (vi) Joga Ram & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6254/2014. (vii) Lokendra Kumar Charoria vs. State & Anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6255/2014. DATE OF JUDGMENT :26. h November, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr.Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, ]. Mr.A.K.Choudhary, ]. for the petitioners. Mr.Mahaveer Pareek ]. Mr. N.L.Verma ]. Mr. J.P.Joshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Joshi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SBCWP No.1211/2014 Bhanwar Lal vs. State & ors. a/w 6 connected matters Judgment dt:26/11/2014 1/83 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT (i) Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1211/2014 (ii) Rajendra Prasad Gora vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6249/2014. (iii) Tara Chand & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6250/2014 (iv) Ravindra Mohan Sharma vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6252/2014. (v) Balwant Singh vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6253/2014. (vi) Joga Ram & Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6254/2014. (vii) Lokendra Kumar Charoria vs. State & Anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6255/2014. DATE OF JUDGMENT :26. h November, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr.Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, ]. Mr.A.K.Choudhary, ]. for the petitioners. Mr.Mahaveer Pareek ]. Mr. N.L.Verma ]. Mr. J.P.Joshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Joshi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B.CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.917/2011 M/s. Perfect Thread Mills Limited Vs The Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) cum SDO, Girwa & Anr. Date of Judgment ::17. h November 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.Manish Singhvi and Mr.Anjay Kothari for the appellant Mr.Akhilesh Rajpurohit and Mr.Vinit Sanadhya for the respondent No.2 NHAI Reportable BY THE COURT: Appellant, a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has laid this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') to assail the impugned order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur (for short 'the learned court below') as well as the award dated 02.01.2007 rendered by Arbitral Tribunal and the award dated 11.08.2006 passed by the Competent Authority (LA)-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Girwa insofar as the same relate to compensation for acquisition of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2002)77TTJ(NULL)640
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.As the above appeals are inter-related and involve common points, so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITSSA No. 7, 4 and 3/Jp/97 are appeals by three assessees, namely, Smt. Chitra Devi (hereinafter referred to as the CD), Shri Prem Prakash Soni (hereinafter referred to as PPS) and Shri Raj Kumar (herenafter referred to as RK) for the block period 1-4-1985, to 5-1-1996, and are directed against three separate assessment orders each dated 30-1-1997, passed by assessing officer in their respective cases, under section 158BC.3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the written statement of assessee furnished on record before us.4. First we take up ITSSA Nos. 7/Jp/97 being in the case of CD ground No. 1 disputes the legal validity of the assessment order and the same being violative of principles of natural justice. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contende...
Tag this Judgment!