Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... india. we have considered aforesaid argument also. before appreciating the argument of the petitioners, it is necessary to refer the objects for which the sebi act was enacted. it provides establishment of board to protect interest of the investors in securities and to promote development and to regulate the security market and ..... are passed by the courts, tribunals and quasi judicial authorities while exercising their inherent powers. in this case, such powers are contained in the sebi act itself. thus, mere passing of ex-parte interim order during pendency of the proceedings cannot mean elimination of principles of natural justice. the petitioners would be ..... failed to raise their objections before the board within the stipulated period and straightway approached this court. second proviso to section 11(4) of the sebi act does not eliminate principles of natural justice, rather it provides for an opportunity of hearing to the intermediaries or persons concerned. in the light of aforesaid .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... their movement in the state as well as the check-posts/document collection centres.these concessions shall not apply to sales diverted under section 6(2) of the cst act.all the dy. commissioner (adm.) shall ensure strict compliance of these directions in their respective zones.(ii) the learned counsel for the assessee, mr. vivek singhal ..... itself, even though the said declaration had a few columns blank, it would be taken as substantial compliance of the statutory provisions of section 78(2) of the act and therefore, imposition of penalty was not justified.3. the first appellate authority, namely, the dy. commissioner (appeals) in his order dtd.8.5.2002 inter ..... appeals) dtd.8.5.2002 whereby both these appellate authorities held that the learned assessing authority was not justified in imposing penalty under section 78(5) of the act amounting to rs.1,95,019/- on the ground that the declaration in form st-18a accompanying the other relevant documents like sale invoice, bill of entry, transport .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... of rajasthan & another v. tajiander pal, reported in (2003) 6 tax update part 3 page no. 84 considered the provisions of section 78(10-a) of the act of 1994 and held that these provisions are not mandatory and only directory in nature. division bench further held that if all the required documents were available at the time ..... officer vide its order dated 31.10.2006 levied penalty under section 76(11) of the rajasthan value added tax act, 2003(hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 2003') for violation of provisions of section 76(2)(a) of the act of 2003. penalty order passed by the assessing officer was set aside by deputy commissioner (appeals) vide order ..... assessing officer.4. it is relevant to mention that provisions of section 76(11) of the act of 2003 are peri materia with the earlier provisions of section 78(10-a) of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1994(hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1994').5. learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that all the required documents .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... 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 ..... above clearly shows that respondents challenged inclusion of structure in khasra no.77 while notification was issued under section 52(1) and 52(2) of uit act, 1959. thus, they knowing about the acquisition of the structure, challenged the same and now taking a contrary plea of exclusion of structure from acquisition ..... 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 proceedings .....
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!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... .10. hon'ble the apex court in assistant commercial taxes officer v. bajaj electricals limited (supra), considered the provisions of section 78(5) of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1994. the amendment made in section 78(5) on 22.03.2002 was also considered and it was held that expression person in charge of the goods under section ..... assessing officer during enquiry, however, the assessment order was set aside on the ground that before 22.03.2002, when amendment was made in section 78(5) of the act of 1994, penalty could not have been levied against owner of the goods and it could have been levied only against 'vehicle driver' or 'person in charge of the ..... be sent along with the goods.4. the assessing officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and consequently, levied penalty under section 78(5) of the act @ 30%, amounting to rs.60,481/- vide order dated 30.06.1999. being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the assessee, which was allowed by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... .f. 04/04/1994 was not admissible in terms of judgment of apex court in respect of sales made by assessees covered under rajasthan sales tax act and the act of shri choudhary was alleged to be of gross negligence, which was self same charge imputed against present petitioner, as well; and in case of ..... retrospective effect and that plea was accepted through out; in such circumstances, it can in no manner be held from material on record that the petitioner acted either negligently or recklessly while discharging his statutory duties as quasi judicial authority while passing order of assessment which was made subject matter of inquiry in instant ..... /03/1998. in absence whereof, there was no prima facie material available on record before the inquiry officer or disciplinary authority which may hold that petitioner acted negligently or recklessly while in exercise of quasi judicial powers or had omitted prescribed conditions necessary for exercise of quasi judicial powers. in the light of what .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... certainly partake the character of the legal liability of the insured employer to pay the compensation amount with due interest as imposed upon him under the compensation act. thus the principal amount as well as the interest made payable thereon would remain part and parcel of the legal liability of the insured to be ..... of and in the course of his employment. such an accident is also covered by the statutory coverage contemplated by section 147 of the motor vehicles act read with the identical provisions under the very contracts of insurance reflected by the policy which would make the insurance company liable to cover all such claims ..... respondents, has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present appeal before this court. according to the learned counsel, according to section 30 of the act, before an appeal can be filed, the insurance company is required to deposit the entire compensation amount including the interest before the learned commissioner. however, in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... , has strenuously pleaded that the deceased had expired only due to his own negligence. 4. therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable under section 163a of the act. secondly, since the deceased was the father of respondent no.1, he cannot be considered as a third party. thirdly, the insurance company had not charged the ..... already observed that even if the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself, even then a petition is maintainable under section 163a of the act. moreover, since the insurance company has not filed an appeal against the impugned award, it cannot raise an objection to the maintainability of the petition. heard ..... at the bar, and examined the impugned award.6. this case raises two legal issues before this court: firstly, whether a petition under section 163a of the act is maintainable, in case the deceased was himself negligent in causing the accident, or not secondly, whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount .....
Tag this Judgment!