Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... said award. writ petition no.4495/2003 was filed by the management challenging order dated 18.12.2001 passed by prescribed authority under payment of wages act, 1936, jaipur city, jaipur, directing payment of consequential benefits to workman s.k. nagesh. writ petition no.1100/2005 has been filed by workman s.k. nagesh challenging ..... 19.06.2004 of judge, special court, (fake currency note cases) jaipur city, jaipur, dismissing revision petition filed there-against. since order passed by payment of wages authority, which is under challenge in writ petition no.4495/2003, sought to implement award of labour court and when operation and implementation of award was stayed ..... (for short, 'the id act'). also under challenge in this writ petition is final award passed by labour court, jaipur, dated 24.01.1995 declaring retrenchment of workman s.k. nagesh to be illegal and holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, however, restricting payment of back wages to lump-sum amount of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... not a company promoted by the appellant or there was some business transaction ever having taken place with respondent-1 (co.) & bansal land mark (p) ltd under which payment of rs.30 lacs was made to it its promoter company. the appellant averred that the money was transferred as loan and not towards transfer of shares. 5. taking ..... conclusion was against law or arose from consideration of irrelevant material or omission to consider relevant materials, the appellate court would interfere u/s 10-f of the co. act. in the present appeal, it is not the case that what has been observed and recorded by co. law board under order impugned are against law or based ..... resolution with an ill-intention to create majority on the board of respondent-1 (co.) and to oppress the appellant, tantamounting to oppression and mismanagement under the co. act, which the appellant filed by way of co. petition before the company law board. it has come on record that appointment of respondent-3 as director was with the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... . copy of driving license and identification card of the deceased were recovered from the accused pratap singh on the basis of information given under section 27 of evidence act. necessary memos and site plan were prepared.5. during investigation, seized clothes of deceased, blood stained soil, and shoes etc. were sent for fsl and after ..... innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. it seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising under section 106 of the indian evidence act may have in civil or in less serous criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence.46 ..... view of principles laid in musheer khan's case (supra), in a case of murder, only on the basis of presumption under section 106 of the evidence act, the finding of conviction cannot be arrived at because this presumption is extremely weak incomparison with the dominant presumption of innocence.48. in these circumstances, we find .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... hand.8. the word `mistake' coupled with words `apparent from the face of the record' is the gravamen of section 37 of the act dealing with rectification of the mistake. it is just another remedial measure provided to the assessee as well as assessing authority including the appellate, revisional or assessing ..... erroneous order of learned deputy commissioner (appeals) and the same does not require any interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction under section 86 of the act. he, therefore, prayed for dismissal of present revision petition.7. i have heard learned counsels at length and given my thoughtful consideration to the controversy in ..... 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 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... of furnishing declaration in form st-18a could be fastened upon the respondent-assessee in the present case, the penalty in question under section 78 (5) of the act deserves to be set aside and the appellate authority below has rightly done so, and therefore, their orders would not require any interference by this court. secondly, ..... to contend that items imported by the assessee do not fall under any of the items so specified which are sought to be taxed as electrical goods under the rst act, 1994.96. electrical goods excluding electrical fans, desert and room coolers, wires and cables, bulbs and tube-lights, electrical home appliances with their parts and accessories. .... ..... 18a was not even required to be furnished or accompanied with the said goods checked and found in transit on 14.10.2000 as per section 78 of the act; and therefore, there was no question of imposition of any penalty for any deficiency or absence of the said declaration. he also submitted that other relevant prescribed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... 1765) and in magan lal v. m/s. jaiswal industries (air 1989 sc 2113) has observed that application under section 31(1) of the act cannot be treated as a plaint for the purpose of payment of court fee.7. the application was filed before the learned district judge, jaipur city, jaipur as the application for loan was submitted at jaipur ..... debtor. (ii)loan amounting to rs. 2,35,000/- was to be paid by the respondents. when the principal debtor did not make the payment, the notice under section 30 of the s.f.c. act was issued. thereafter, the bus no. 2607 was taken in possession on 20.7.1989 and was auctioned on 24.7.1990 and an amount ..... by the learned additional district judge, no.3, jaipur city, jaipur. as the district judge, jaipur city, jaipur has jurisdiction to adjudicate the application under section 31 of the act, i remit the said application for a fresh decision to the court of addl. district judge, jaipur city, jaipur. let copy of this order be forwarded to the additional district .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... on failure to make an award within the period prescribed therein. it was further held that non-compliance of section 17(3-a), regarding part payment of compensation before taking possession, would also not render the possession illegal and entitle the government to withdraw from acquisition. the aforesaid principle has been ..... worth crores. however, the affidavits given by the chief secretary, state of rajasthan clarifies the position, thus we need not to makeobservation regarding the act of the official respondents.21. the writ petition is accordingly allowed holding that the private respondents are not in rightful possession of the property in question ..... to acquire the land of ram bagh area and, thereafter, a gazette notification was issued under the provisions of rajasthan urban improvement trust act, 1959 (for short uit act of 1959). acquisition was challenged by brigadier bhawani singh (erstwhile ruler), gandhi grah nirman co-operative society and many other persons. acquisition .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... one year is over, the respondents herein offer a four-year service contract only for the sealed system or parts thereof. this contract is not free. it is on payment basis. the contract is not compulsory and the four dealers entered into service contract in respect of 91 per cent of their purchase. they did not make the contract ..... be applied nor the decision thereof have any relevancy because the rajasthan sales tax act, is a self-contained code and in view of the specific definition the assistance from the other act cannot be taken. in these circumstances, i am of the view that if the payment in respect of warranty were voluntary in nature and have separately been charged then ..... payment by way of warranty is like an insurance charge and when the said amount is collected there is no transfer of property and at a future date a contingency may or may not arise where the defective part is replaced. in such a situation it cannot be said that the amount has been collected in respect of an act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... raised preliminary objection that regarding auction held on 22/09/2010 remedy lies u/s 17 of securitization & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 (sarfaesi act) but after arguments on merits being made by respondent, preliminary objection was not pressed; and submits that since matter may be heard by court on merits ..... interest (enforcement) rules, 2002 (rules, 2002). it is a matter of record that appellant-bank preferred company appeal u/s 10-f of indian companies act, 1956 (co. act) against order dt.10/03/2009 of the company law board and while admitting appeal, interim order was passed by company court on 24/07/2009 ..... property under auction must fetch optimum price and the procedure provided under the scheme of rules, 2002 be strictly followed, which implies that first charge holder must act in a manner which protects not only its own interest but also the interest of subsequent charge holder, if any & the mortgagor. it further implies that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... raised preliminary objection that regarding auction held on 22/09/2010 remedy lies u/s 17 of securitization & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 (sarfaesi act) but after arguments on merits being made by respondent, preliminary objection was not pressed; and submits that since matter may be heard by court on merits ..... interest (enforcement) rules, 2002 (rules, 2002). it is a matter of record that appellant-bank preferred company appeal u/s 10-f of indian companies act, 1956 (co. act) against order dt.10/03/2009 of the company law board and while admitting appeal, interim order was passed by company court on 24/07/2009 ..... property under auction must fetch optimum price and the procedure provided under the scheme of rules, 2002 be strictly followed, which implies that first charge holder must act in a manner which protects not only its own interest but also the interest of subsequent charge holder, if any & the mortgagor. it further implies that .....
Tag this Judgment!