Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-31-1995
Reported in : 1996ACJ447; 1996(3)WLC674
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The expression 'an appeal' occurring in Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (and now in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) has given rise to these matters before the Full Bench. Does the expression 'an appeal' connote number of appeals available to an aggrieved person or is it used as requirement of grammar of English language to write the correct language? This, in short, is the question to be examined and decided by the Full Bench in both these appeals. The special appeals arise out of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'). In both these special appeals, the Division Bench of this court by order dated 10.8.1993 referred the following question to a larger Bench:Whether a special appeal lies under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against a judgment of the learned single Judge under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-05-1995
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC685; 1995(2)WLN252
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 18.1.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Name of the Offences Sentencesappellants1. Gurdeep Singh Under Sections Under Section 459 IPC 5 years'459, 307 and R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-;302 IPC indefault 6 month R.I.2. Smt. Chandra Kaur Under Sections Under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC 6459, 307/34, years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-302/34 IPC indefault 8 months' R.I. UnderSections 302, 302/34 IPC lifeimprisonment a fine of Rs. 200/-indefault 2 years' R.I.3. Dhanna Singh Under Section. Life imprisonment and a fine of302 read with Rs. 200/- indefault R.I. for 2109 I.P.C. years.4. Udai5. Talla Singh6. Shamshersingh2. Since aforementioned appeals arise out of the same judgment, those are being decided by a common judgment.3. Now briefly the factual matrix: Appellant Gurdeep Singh is the husband of appellant Chandr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-14-1995
Reported in : AIR1997Raj35
A.P. Ravani, C.J.1. Petitioners, in all 10 in number, are students of B.A.M.S. (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) in different colleges affiliated with the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Other 23 students have also prayed for being joined in the petition, and they have been permitted to be so joined. Their names are mentioned in Schedule-A to the writ petition.2. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of provisions of Raja-sthan University Ordinance No. 329.N.19(e), (f) and (g). It is further prayed that the provision contained in Ordinance 329.N-19 (b) to (n) may be held to the invalid to the extent of repugnancy with the Regulations of 1986 and it be directed that they are not enforceable to the extent of repugnancy. By way of further prayer, it is prayed that the non-petitioners be directed to allow the petitioners to pursue studies for the second professional examination without any inter-ruption and the non-petitioner be also directed to permit the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-03-1995
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ610Raj; 1995(2)WLN507
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of all the above writ petitions as the point involved is common in all these writ petitions, namely, whether the employees of the canteen could be considered the employees of H.M.T. Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) or/are the employees of H.M.T. Employees Co-operative Canteen, Ltd. (hereinafter called co-operative canteen).Writ petition No. 1341 of 1986 has been filed by H.M.T. Employees Union against the award of the Labour Court, dated March 27, 1986, in which it was decided that the H.M.T. Employees Co-operative Canteen Ltd., is the employer of V.N. Bose and not the company. A prayer is made that the said employee be declared the employee of the company irrespective of the fact that he was working in the co-operative canteen.Writ Petition No. 1477 of 1987 has been filed by the H.M.T. Employees Union against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated November 5, 1986, in which it was declared that the employees of the canteen are r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-1995
Reported in : [1995]214ITR712(Raj)
Y.R. Meena, J. 1. Earlier, in the application under Section 250(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee required the Income-tax AppellateTribunal to draw up the statement of case for the assessment year 1971-72 and to refer the questions of law to this court. On the request of the assessee, the Tribunal was directed to refer the following questions of law to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on record to justify the enhancing of the estimate sales of the assessee to Rs. 9,10,000 and in applying gross profit rate of 21 per cent. ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,714 as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources or the said amount should have been added to the trading account of the assessee or telescoped with the trading account of the assessee keeping in view the facts that intangible additions hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-10-1995
Reported in : 1995(2)WLN321
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a relief to quash the impugned order of Additional Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Jaipur (respondent No. 1) dated 3.12.1983 Annex. 6 to the writ petition and for restoring the order dated 24.7.1980 Annex. 2 to the writ petition passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (respondent No. 2) on the ground, inter alia, that respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to set aside the orders of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali (respondent No. 3) dated 13.7.1979 Annx. 1 to the writ petition by substituting his own order enhancing the tax liability. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer. Pali has attained finality subject to the modification of order dated 24.7.1980 Annx. 2 to the writ petition passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction conferred upon him Under Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the Rajasthan Entertainments...
Tag this Judgment!