Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-21-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1653; 2004(2)WLC287
shiv kumar sharma, j.(1). the petitioner who was appointed as additional district & sessions judge in the rajasthan higher judicial services on probation, seeks to quash the order dated october 7, 1998 of the state of rajasthan whereby services of the petitioner have been dispensed with.(2). contextual facts depict that appointment of the petitioner on the post of additional district and sessions judge was made for a period of two years vide order dated august 2, 1996 and this probation period was further extended upto october 9, 1998. the order which is under challenge reads as under:-'whereas smt. usha dubey was appointed by direct recruitment in the rajasthan higher judicial service as additional district & sessions judge on probation for a period of two years vide government order no. f.19(1) (11) jud/90 dated 02.8.96 and his probation period was subsequently extended upto 09-10-98 vide government order no. f.19(11)/90 dated 29.8.98.and whereas the rajasthan high court, jodhpur, after perusing all the relevant record, has resolved that smt. usha dubey has not made sufficient use of his opportunities and has otherwise also failed to give satisfaction as a probationer in the rajasthan higher judicial service.and whereas the rajasthan high court has recommended under rule 26(1) of the rajasthan higher judicial service rules, 1969 that the services of smt. usha dubey be dispensed with, with effect from 09.10.98.now, therefore, the governor of the state in consultation with .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-08-2004
Reported in : 2004(175)ELT33(Raj); RLW2004(3)Raj1894; 2004(3)WLC1
anil dev singh, c.j.1. the dispute raised in the aforesaid petitions is with regard to the question whether hdpe/pp tapes are classifiable under heading no. 39.20 or heading no. 39.22 or heading no. 39.26 of section vii of the schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985. since the controversy in all these writ petitions is the same we may notice the facts of d.b. civil writ petition no. 3737 of 1989 with a view to understand the background in which these matters arise.2. the petitioner in d.b. civil writ petition no. 3737/1989 is m/s kay poly plast pvt. ltd. it is engaged in the business of manufacture of high density poly ethylene tapes (for short, 'hdpe tapes') and poly propylene tapes (for short, 'pp tapes'). it appears that the petitioner purchases hdpe/pp granules. in order to convert the hdpe/pp granules into hdpe/pp tapes, the granules are poured into a machine called extruder. in the extruder these granules are melted by heating. due to heat the granules polymerize into a molten mass. simultaneously with heating, mechanical pressure is applied by rotation of screw. by application of appropriate pressure a film or strip of desired gauge is obtained. this film or strip thus obtained is in a semi-finished condition. the film or strip is cooled with the help of air in the open and is slit into tapes with the help of blades fixed in a machine called godet machine. after silting, the tapes are stretched with the help of heat generated by heaters and by mechanical force. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-24-2004
Reported in : III(2004)ACC616; 2006ACJ1602; RLW2004(4)Raj2483; 2004(3)WLC177
prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this appeal is against the award dated 6th oct., 1998 by which the motor accident claims tribunal, nohar allowed the claim petition of the claimants and held the appellant-insurance company liable to reimburse the claimed amount.3. the appellant-insurance company preferred this appeal raising only dispute about the validity of the licence of the driver. according to learned counsel for the appellant, the driver of the vehicle, at the relevant point of time, was driving the heavy goods vehicle and he had no driving licence to drive the said vehicle. according to learned counsel for the appellant, if the licence of the driver, which was produced by the driver is taken to be valid then that licence was issued to ply the heavy passenger vehicle only. according to learned counsel for the appellant, the accident occurred on 17th oct., 1993 before coming into force of the amendment of the certain provisions of the motor vehicles act, which came into force on 14th nov., 1994. in the year 1993, as per clause (f) and (h) of sub-section (2) of section 10, the licenses were required to be issued for the vehicle of the category separately for heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle. according to learned counsel for the appellant, as per the condition of the policy, in case, the vehicle is handed over to a person, who had no valid driving licence of the category of the vehicle mentioned in the act or rules, the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-24-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj478; 2005(1)WLC243
r.p. vyas, j.1. the instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated august 26, 2003, by which he dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-petitioners on the grounds that to settle the scores against respondent no. 3- smt. surta devi the lady sarpanch of gram panchayat, the petition has been filed, and she is indulged in forgery and prepared forged documents, the petitioner-appellants are free to move a no confidence motion against her. apart from that, the petitioner- appellants are not directly affected by the order of the state government.2. aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned single judge, the instant appeal has been filed.3. in this appeal, the appellant-petitioners have challenged the impugned order of the learned single judge dated august 26, 2003 on two grounds. firstly, it was contended that the learned single judge has committed serious illegality and irregularity while dismissing the writ petition, without taking into consideration the provisions of section 39 and 97 of the rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act, 1994')- he also made an attempt to assail the impugned judgment with reference to section 39 of the act, 1994 and submitted that by virtue of the said provisions of the act and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the state government has no jurisdiction to pass such impugned order and there is no reason to hold that the respondent no. 3 is not guilty. secondly, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-23-2004
Reported in : 2005CriLJ1051; RLW2005(2)Raj775; 2005(1)WLC663
orderprakash tatia, j.1. the facts of the case are that the complainant-manga ram submitted a criminal complaint under sections 420, 465, 466, 467 and 468, i.p.c. read with section 120b. i.p.c. against 11 persons alleging therein that the complainant and the accused nos. 1 to 4 namely, ramu, chautu, sua and chhotu were the co-sharers in agricultural land bearing khasra nos. 231/1, 432/1, 426, 381 and 189 situated in village sunariya and dalatpura. since the complainant-manga ram was not keeping the good health, therefore, his all four brothers (accused) were cultivating the land. the complainant, in his complaint, stated that the accused nos. 2 to 4 were not giving share in the crop also and they started quarrelling with him. not only this but the accused persons by forging thump impression of the complainant, sold the land by registered sale deed dated 14-7-1982. in the complaint, it is submitted that out of two accused, jeevan and kushla, one put his thumb impression representing himself to be the complainant. the complaint was forwarded under section 156(3), cr.p.c. to the concerned police station, upon which case no. 86/1982 was registered. after investigation, the challan was filed against seven accused persons, namely, chauthu, chhotu, sua, jeewan, mal singh, kushala ram and shanker puri for offences under sections 465, 466, 467, 419, 420 and 120b, i.p.c. on 30-11-1984, cognizance against three more persons was taken by the court. those were sohan, bhag chand and madan- .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-03-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj2366; 2004(5)WLC181
rajesh balia, j.1. in these petitions the constitutional validity of section 3 of rajasthan co-operative societies (amendment) ordinance, 2004 has been challenged. as per section 3 of the ordinance, sub-section (2-b) has been inserted in existing section 30 of the co-operative societies act, 2001. the impugned provision provides for contingency where before expiry of the term of the elected managing committee of any society, a new committee is not constituted. in such event, it enables the govt. to direct the registrar of co-operative societies to appoint a government servant as administrator to manage the affairs of the society till a new committee is constituted provided that no member of the committee replaced by an administrator under this sub-section shall be deemed disqualified under sub-section (5) of section 28.2. under the parent act before amendment also an administrator could be appointed to take over the management of a society by removing the existing committee under section 30 (1), but in that event the members of a committee removed under section 30 become disqualified to be a member of a committee, as per section 28 (5) of the act. the act also made provision for amalgamation of two or more co-operative societies under section 13.3. the act of 2001 was reserved for consideration of the president and had received assent of the president. in view thereof, such of the provisions of act of 2001, which provides for any of the matters enumerated in sub-clauses (a) .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-09-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj858; 2004(4)WLC574
shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the appellants were accused on the file of learned sessions judge, jaipur district jaipur bearing sessions case no. 89/97. learned sessions judge vide judgment dated may 24, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-bundu khan:under section 302 ipc: to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 2.000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. jarina:under section 302/34 ipc: to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. the prosecution story is woven like this:-on may 24, 1997 around 6.15 pm nawal kishore sharma (pw.7), who was posted as asi at police station bagru, recorded parcha bayan of smt. kamla (pw. 1) at mridul agricultural farm bindayka. in the parcha bayan smt. kamla stated that her husband mahadev (now deceased) was axed by bundu khan while his wife jarina inflicted lathi-blows. mangej (pw.8) and jagdish bagra (pw.18) had seen the incident. thereafter mahadev was taken to hospital by madan dudi and lallu meena in a jeep. on the basis of parcha bayan of kamla initially a case under sections 307, 324 and 323/34 ipc was registered which was later on converted under section 302 ipc. after usual investigation the charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned sessions judge, jaipur district. charges under sections 302 and 302/34 ipc were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-25-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1106; 2005(1)WLC255
shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the appellant (hereinafter described as 'accused') was placed on trial before the learned special judge (sati nivaran) rajasthan and additional sessions judge, jaipur city, jaipur in sessions case no. 79/1997. learned judge vide judgment dated september 26, 2000 convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under section 302 ipc to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 10,000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. put briefly the prosecution case is that the informant mohd. shafiq @ babu (pw.6) submitted a written report at 7.00 pm of february 28, 1996 at the police station ramganj, jaipur with the averments that around 5 pm on the said day when he was standing near nagina mandi, irshad, ashfaq and guddu suddenly caught hold of siraj (now deceased) and dilshad inflicted blow on the left armpit of siraj. the police station ramganj jaipur registered a case for the offences under sections 307, 341 and 34 ipc and investigation commenced. injury sustained by siraj got examined, which was described in the injury report (ex.p-10) as under:-'stab incised wound of size 3 x 1cm x depth? placed at lt. side lower part of chest at ant. axillary line. the wound margins are regular and clean cut well defined with fresh bleeding.'since siraj succumbed to the said injury the case was converted under section 302 ipc. post mortem on the dead body was performed vide post mortem report (ex.p-13), according to which deceased .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-09-2004
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR963]; (2004)IILLJ962Mad; (2004)2MLJ198
d. murugesan, j.1. the appellant in w.a. no: 1476 of 2001 was a conductor in the respondent corporation since 20.06.1975. he was on duty on 14.09.1991 in the bus belonging to the respondent corporation plying between manjur to coimbatore. when the bus was checked at 7.30 p.m. at athikadavu by the officials of the respondent corporation, it was found that the appellant had collected rs.2.40 towards ticket fare for the distance between kethai and athikadavu from 22 passengers; for 3 passengers he had issued appropriate tickets, however, for the remaining 19 passengers he had issued tickets of rs.1.40 instead of rs.2.40. according to the officials of the respondent corporation, the appellant had collected rs.2.40 from the rest of the 19 passengers also. it was also found that the appellant has not filled the invoice regarding the collection of fares before the next stage. hence, a charge memo dated 16.09.1991 was issued to the appellant calling upon his explanation. appellant, though submitted his explanation, did not refute the charges in full. an amended charge memo dated 08.10.1991 was also issued to the appellant.2. not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered. on behalf of the respondent corporation one witness was examined and on behalf of the appellant he himself was alone examined. the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31.12.1991 holding that the charges are proved. the enquiry officer took note of the fact that though a witness was examined on the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-01-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)CTC81
orderk. govindarajan, j.1. the above appeals are filed by the assignee-decree holder of the decree granted in c.s.no. 28/1975 having aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single judge in various applications. since the issue raised in these appeals arc very narrow one, namely, whether the execution petitions filed in e.p.nos. 58, 69, 70 and 71 of 1986 by the appellant in this court without obtaining permission to have simultaneous execution of the decree are maintainable, we arc not proposed to elaborate the facts as they are not to be decided except a few facts which are necessary to decide the issue.2. the plaintiff/andhra bank ltd., filed a suit in c.s.no. 28/1975 for recovery of a sum of rs. 15,58,214.79 from the defendants, after obtaining a decree on 25.4.1979, directing defendants 3 and 4 and defendants 5 to 11, from out of the assets, if any, of the deceased r.s. jhaver, who is the original defendant, in the hands of defendants 5 to 11. the appellant got assignment of the said decree from general electric co. of india, as there is a provision in the decree that defendants 2 and 3 and defendants 5 to 11 shall pay to the 4th defendant, the decree amount and that the 4th defendant be entitled to execute the decree on payment of 50% of the court fee payable at 75% of rs. 17,50,000. the assignee-decree holder filed e.p.no. 121/1985 before this court and the same was transferred to sub-court, poonamallee and renumbered as e.p.no. 80/1985. thereafter, the appellant .....Tag this Judgment!