Latest Cases

Kamla Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : II(2008)DMC159; RLW2007(3)Raj2557

.....no. 842001, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under section 304b, ipc, to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment.2. briefly stated the facts of the case are that initially pw-1 amar dhwaj singh, father of deceased usha, lodged a written report on 7.8.2000 at 9.50 am at police station udyog nagar, kota, wherein it was written that about one-and-half year ago he got his daughter usha married with raj bahadur singh. his daughter died in a suspicious circumstance at her matrimonial house. she is hanged on fan in her room. the s.h.o. registered the report under section 176, cr.p.c. and forwarded it to the additional district magistrate for enquiry. the postmortem of deceased usha was conducted on the same day wherein it was opined that her death has been due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.3. subsequently on 8.8.2000 at about 4.15 pm another written report (exhibit p-4) was lodged by pw-1 amar dhwaj singh at police station udyog nagar, kota, wherein it was mentioned that marriage of his daughter usha singh took place on 4.12.1998 with raj bahadur. after some time of marriage, her in-laws started harassing her because of less dowry. the allegations were.....

MehardIn Vs. State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2007(3)WLN563

.....is that by an order dt. 14.07.1999, the petitioner was taken on regular cadre of the government service with application of rajasthan civil service rules, 1951, however, the order aforesaid was withdrawn by the dy. conservator of forest, indira gandhi nahr pariyojna, stage-ii division-ii, bikaner by an order dt. 02.08.2003. in view of withdrawal of the order aforesaid according to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefits. during course of hearing, it was noticed that this court in sbcwp no. 1639/ 2000, while admitting the aforesaid petition for writ, stayed the operation of the order whereby regular cadre granted to the petitioner was withdrawn. it is quite fairly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the dy. conservator of forest, indira gandhi nahar pariyojna, stage-ii, division-ii, bikaner under an order dt. 02.08.2003 has already cancelled the order dt. 20.04.2003 as a consequent thereto the order of regularization of the petitioner in service dt. 14.07.1999 stands restored. a photo copy of the order dt. 02.08.2003 is also taken on record.4. in view of restoration of the order dt. 14.07.1999, no reason now remains.....

Girija Vs. Sh. Divya Kumar

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2007(3)WLN41

.....was not impleaded as co-respondent.3. along with the said petition of husband, two other petitions filed by the wife girija under section 9 of the act and under section 18 of the hindu adoption and maintenance act, were tied and as many as 8 issues were framed, out of which issue no. 2 was as under:whether respondent (wife) had illicit relations with anoop jindal and she was living adulterous life.4. we have heard the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the parties.5. in not impleading anoop jindal as co-respondent, the husband divya kumar flouted the provisions contained in rule 801-g of the rules of the high court of judicature for rajasthan 1952. rule 801-g reads as under:801-g necessary parties (a) in every petition for divorce or judicial separation on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery or has committed adultery with any person the petitioner shall make such person a co-respondent. the petitioner may however, apply to the court by an application supported by an affidavit for leave to dispense with the joinder of such person as a co-respondent on any of the following grounds:(i) that the name of such person is unknown to the petitioner.....

Pradip Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(2)ShimLC56

.....the respondent no. 3 has supported the claim of. the petitioner. but respondents no. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have not chosen to file replies despite the fact that the notices were issued to them on 8.8.2002, returnable within three weeks.5. mr. maniktala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 5 and 6 submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the regular pay scale on the pattern of university grants commission since his appointment is temporary in nature.6. i have perused the record and heard the parties. it is evident from para 7 of annexure p-5 that an affiliated non-government college or institution is required to adopt the same pay scale for its teachers as is in force from time to time for the teachers in government colleges of the state. the pay scale of the post of lecturer as per the material placed on record by the petitioner was revised from rs. 2200-4000 to rs. 8000-13500. it is evident from the notification dated 14th december, 1998 annexure p-4 dated 27th october, 1999 that the pay scale of registrar/demonstrator which was rs. 2200-4000 was revised to rs. 7880-13500 with a start of rs. 8,000 and one dr. (renu gupta) medical officer was appointed in.....

P.C. Katoch Vs. the Principal, Regional Engineering College and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(I)ShimLC102

.....and suitably mould the relief in order to mete out justice in the case. your lordships of supreme court have held as under:the material facts and circumstances had undergone a substantial change subsequent to the filing of the original petition and it was in consequence thereof that it had become unnecessary for the petitioner to pursue his original prayer for the grant of a larger relief. besides ignoring this crucial aspect, the division bench of the high court has also lost sight of the well-established principle that in an action where a party has prayed for a larger relief it is always open to the court to grant him any smaller relief that he may be found to be entitled in law and thereby render substantial justice. the court can undoubtedly take note of changed circumstances and suitably mould the relief to be granted to the party concerned in order to mete out justice in the case. as far as possible the anxiety and endeavour of the court should be to remedy an injustice when it is brought to its notice rather than deny relief to an aggrieved party on purely technical and narrow procedural grounds.7. similarly, your lordships of supreme court have held in state.....

Himachal Pradesh Mahila Vikas Nigam Vs. Jerath Electronics

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(2)ShimLC26

.....pvt. ltd. (respondent in arbitration case no. 51 of 2005 and applicant in arbitration case no. 53 of 2005) has been challenged thereby.2. first, the facts necessary, for comprehending the questions involved may be noticed. h.p. mahila vikas nigam (applicant in arbitration case no. 51 of 2005 and respondent in arbitration case no. 53 of 2005), hereinafter referred to as nigam, made certain bye-laws, called 'himachal pradesh mahila vikas nigam bye-laws for financial assistance, 1989'. clause 5(b) of these bye-laws (repealed since 1992) provided that the nigam would grant 4% relief on total investment made by a unit on a project, by way of subsidy, in a particular financial year if the unit provided employment to women to the extent of at least 60% in that particular financial year and the number of total employees in that unit was not less than six, on an application made on form-a-iv. clause 17 of these bye-laws provides that in case of any dispute arising out of any provision or in any way touching or concerning the bye-laws, whatsoever, the matter shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the secretary (welfare) to the government of himachal pradesh or his nominee acting as.....

Battan Singh Vs. State of H.P. and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(2)ShimLC428

.....over the land in question was duly established, whether the relief of injunction could have been denied to the plaintiff-appellant?2. relevant facts for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. ram singh, the father of the appellant-plaintiff, filed a suit seeking declaration that he was owner in possession of 11 bighas 11 biswas of land depicted by khasra no. 1769/1 khewat no. 366 min, khatauni no. 885 min, situate in village hatwar pargna ajmerpur, tehsil ghumarwin, district bilaspur and also for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants-respondents from causing any interference in his possession or dispossessing him from the suit land. it was alleged that the suit land was part of khasra no. 1769, which was initially entered in the ownership and possession of the ex-ruler of erstwhile state of bilaspur and later on the state of himachal pradesh. it was alleged that about 60 years back, the father of the plaintiff, i.e. the appellant's father's father had occupied the suit land that is to say. 11 bighas 11 biswas area, and made it irrigable by digging a kuhal and ever since the possession had been with the father of the plaintiff and after his death.....

Rajinder Kumar and ors. Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(3)ShimLC279

.....that there could be observations from 'statutory audit' was not sufficient ground to deny the petitioners re-designation from the anterior date.thus, the expression 'immediate effect' as mentioned in annexure p-5 dated 4.3.1997 is liable to be struck down after applying the principle of severability being violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india.upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned annexure p-8 dated 21.8.1992 is quashed and set aside and the petitioners are held entitled to re-designation with all consequential benefits as pump operators from the initial date of their appointments. the respondents are directed to work out the monetary benefits to which the petitioners will be entitled and thereafter the petitioners be also assigned the due seniority from the date of their initial appointment. the respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary etc. to the petitioners within a period of three months from today failing which the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum till the date of payment.there shall be no order as to costs.

Neeraj Sharma and Another Vs. Sri Guru Gobind Singh College and Others

Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

.....nos. 1 and 2 were directed to refund the tuition and examination fee of rs. 12,385 along with rs. 10,000 as compensation. 2. briefly stated the facts are that sh.neeraj sharma appellant no. 1 took admission with respondent no. 1 sri guru gobind singh college in b.a. part-i in july, 2005 by depositing rs. 8,500 as admission fee. he was allotted roll no. 262 on 21.7.2005 with a condition that he was being admitted provisionally and would have to clear his compartment in english in the next examination to be held in august, 2005. accordingly he appeared in the examination and cleared the compartment in english by securing 58 marks. since then, he had been regularly attending the college and deposited tuition fee of rs. 2,385 on 19.11.2005 vide receipt annexure e. thereafter in february, 2006, respondent no. 1 deposited examination fee of rs. 1,500 along with university examination form on 10.2.2006 vide receipt annexure –f, so that they could forward the form to punjab university. however, on 1.3.2006 he received letter dated 24.2.2006 from respondent nos. 1 and 2 intimating him that he was not eligible for admission to b.a. part-i as he had obtained less than 20% marks in.....

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Orient Cements

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2007)7STR649

.....no.1/2005 dated 30.6.2005 passed by the commissioner of customs & central excise (appeals-i), hyderabad.2. the respondents are the manufacturers of cement and clinker both excisable commodity. they filed a refund claim for an amount of rs. 11,03,392/- paid by them during the period from 17.10.1998 to 30.6.1999 as service users towards the services received by them from the clearing and forwarding agents for the said period. the contention of the respondents is that there is no tax liability on service users on c & f agents for the period subsequent to 16.10.1998 as per finance act, 2003. the original authority rejected the refund claim. the respondents appealed to the commissioner (appeals). the commissioner (appeals) relying on the decision of the apex court in the case of laghu udyog bharati v. u.o.i. held that the respondents who are users of the service provided by c & f agents are not liable to pay the service tax as the supreme court has held that rule 2 (d) (xii) and (xvii) of service tax rules, 1994, as amended in 1997, ultra vires the act itself. the revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order on the following grounds: the commissioner (appeals).....