Rajasthan Court November 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.B. Seth Moolchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: [1993]200ITR201(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. In this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following three questions have been raised :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the debts aggregating to Rs. 8,04,199 had become bad during the relevant previous year and the assessee had validly written them off? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no cessation of liability in respect of the credit balances aggregating to Rs. 1,46,285 and that being so, the addition of the aforesaid amount was not sustainable under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or, alternatively, even under the head 'Income from business or other sources' ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee's claim for bad debts was tenable by ignoring the fact that the assessee-co...
Shriram Vyas @ Shrimant Kumar Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)183
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.3.1982 Ex. 9 whereby it has been communicated that petitioner is attaining super-annuation age on 31.2.82 and, therefore, he is being retired with effect from the last date of March, 1982 under rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Petitioner alleges that his date of birth is not 3.3.1927 but 3.12.1927 which was also originally recorded in his service record and he is not aware how and when, his date of birth has been changed from 3.12.1927 to 3.3.1927. Therefore, petitioner has prayed that order Ex. 9 dated 25.3.82 may be quashed and he may not be relieved from service till he attains the age of superannuation on 31.12.82. This Court passed as interim order on 30th March, 1982 to the effect that meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be retired and the stay order was confirmed vide order dated 13.10.1982. Thus, the petitioner has continued in service untill the date he has claimed in the petition to be the age of his...
Dharam NaraIn and ors. Vs. Firm Badridas Dwarakadas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)224
N.K. Jain, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal Under Section 75(2) of the provincial Insolvency Act is directed against the order passed by learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Jodhpur dated 22.3.1991 passed in insolvency case No. 1/81.2. Brief facts which give rise to this appeal are that the appellants moved an objection application on 12.5.73 with the allegation that on the application dt. 21.5.74 of creditors Gulabchand, Dwarakadas and Ors. the firm Shyamdas Badridas together with their partners Badridas and Udairaj were adjudicated insolvents on 6.11.54. They submitted an application for discharge on 7.11.55. The insolvents and their creditors submitted a proposal for composition on 23.1.1967 which was approved by the court Under Section 39 of the provincial Insolvency Act by its order dt. 25.2.1971. The Court receiver was appointed 27.4.54. The insolvents submitted an application for discharge on 12.5.73. The Insolvency Court discharged Badridas as well as Udairaj on 16.10.73. The two houses an...
Uda Ram and ors. Vs. Sedhya and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC414; 1991WLN(UC)374
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 31.5.89, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dausa, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 36/1985, by which he confirmed the order dated 12.8.1985, passed by learned Munsif, Bandikui, on an application for temporary injunction.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff non petitioners filed a suit against the defendant petitioners for injunction. They also filed an application for temporary injunction praying that the petitioners be restrained from going the taking their bullocks through eastern side of Khasra No. 6343. The trail court allowed the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 12.8.1985. Against the order of the trail court, the defendants filed an appeal. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioners submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC alongwith the order of Tehsildar, Baswa, report of Patwari alongwith site plan. It seems from the re...
Bhartiya Mining Vibhag Karamchari Sangh and anr. Vs. State of Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)436
Rajesh Balia, J.1. A very short issue is raised in this petition. Petitioner No. 2 Logar Mal who is alleged to be member of petitioner No. 1, a registered trade Union, was appointed as a helper in the employment of Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Rajasthan, Udaipur in the Year 1970. His services were terminated by the order dated 16.8.1976. An industrial dispute was raised in respect of the termination of the petitioner No. 2 and the following dispute was referred:D;k ;akf=d vfHk;Urk] [kku ,oa HkwfoKku foHkkx] mn;iqj }kjk muds Jfed Jh yksxjey rsy dks ftldk izfrfuf/kRo Hkkjrh; ekbZfuax foHkkx deZpkjh la?k] mn;iqj us fd;k gS lsok ls i`Fkd djuk mfpr ,oa Bhd gS2. In the said reference, award was passed on 25.11.1980 in favour of the petitioner No. 2 holding that the termination order was invalid. According to the award, the employee was not entitled to back wages with effect from 16.8.76 to the date of reinstatement provided he is reinstated with one month from the date of the pu...
Madhav Lal Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN365
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 21.7.1981 Annex. 5.2. The undisputed facts which led to filing of this Writ Petition are as under:Petitioner was initially appointed on 1.10.56 as Naka Guard at Municipal Board, Deogarh. He was recommended for promotion on the post of Nakedar which fell vacant on account of death of Shri Shambho Lal Dhabai vide order dated 16.12.63 subject to confirmation by the Board and was ordered to be so promoted on temporary basis. Thereafter by order Ex. 3 dated 16.5.66, the Chairman of the Board promoted the petitioner on the post of Sub-Nakedar instead-of Nakedar with effect from 1.4.66. This order was subject to confirmation by the Board. The Board in its meeting held on 22.5.66 unanimously confirmed the order dated 16.5.66 appointing the petitioner of Sub-Nakedar with effect from 1.4.66. This resolution has been placed on record as Annex. 4. It appears that petitioner was holding a certificate of Rashtra Bhasha Pravesh Pariksha from Ra...
Tara Chand Vs. Ratan Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC571; 1991WLN(UC)286
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is second appeal by plaintiff Tara Chand against the appellate decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City dated March 5, 1981, reversing the decree passed by Addl. Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaiur City on Sept. 25, 1969 and dismissing Civil Suit No. 398/1960 for declaration and possession, filed by the appellant.2. Tara Chand appellant had instituted Civil Suit No. 398/1960 in the court of Munsif (East), Jaipur against Phool Chand deceased (now represented by respondents Nos. 1/2, 1/3 and 1/5) and against Smt. Raja Devi and Shyam Das with the averments that he had purchased a land surrounded by compound and having tin covered house situated in Chokari Hawaii Shahar East, outside Gangapol Gate, Bas Badanpura by virtue of a sale deed dated Nov. 30, 1948 for a consideration amount of Rs. 499/-. After purchase of this property, he obtained permission from the Municipal Committee, Jaipur in January, 1950 and constructed a wall in this compou...
Pit Ram Singh Vs. Vimla Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj149; 1992(3)WLC636
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the tenant against the judgment and decree of the trial court decreeing the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and directing the appellant to hand over the possession of the shop in question to the plaintiff-respondent.2. The appellant -- Pit Ram Singh was the tenant of the shop in dispute belonging to Smt. Vimla Devi -- respondent. She filed a suit on the following three grounds :--1. that the tenant was in default of rent for a period of more than six months;2. that he had sub-let the tenament to Jai Narain chaudhary and3. that the shop in question lay unused for more than 10 months when the suit was filed.On the aforesaid three grounds, trial court framed three issues. Issue No. 1, on which the suit was decreed, was whether the defendant had not paid rent for the period from 11-9-1982 to July, 1985. The second and third issues were to the effect as to whether the defendant had...
Nunaram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1991
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1274
ORDER1. By this miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners (namely, Nunaram, Rameshwar, Bhagirath, Subh Karan, Birju, Mangaram, Jagdish, Ram Kunwar, Birbal, Ganesharam, Hari Singh, Birju (s/o Hari Singh), Girdhari, Narsa Ram, Hanuman (s/o Asharam), Phoolaram alias Harphool, Bhanwarlal and Smt. Jeevani) praying for quashing of an order dated the 31st March, 1989 passed by the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners in Cr. Case No. 70/88.2. Criminal Case No. 70/ 88 arises out of a complaint having been filed on November 16, 1988 by respondent, Bhagwana Ram, against the petitioners. Bhagwana Ram (under Section 200, Cr.P.C.) and others namely, Hariram, Ramlal, Harlal, Chandra Ram, Birbal and Narain Singh (ASI) (under Section 202, Cr.P.C.) were examined. Thereafter, under impugned order dated 31-3-1989, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 302, 342, 364, 120B, 147, ...
Gopal Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC595; 1991(2)WLN332
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. A short question which requires determination is as to whether the respondents can withhold payment of salary and allowances to the 9 petitioners who have been appointed in the service of the respondents. Petitioners have made prayer that by issuing an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be directed to make payment of salary with compensation amount plus interest.2. The facts of the case arc that the petitioners have been selected for appointment on various posts advertised vide advertisement dated 21.7.90 (Annexure-1). All the petitioners had been subjected to interview by the competent authority and on having been found suitable, they were appointed on different posts by separate orders issued on 20.8.90, 23.8.90 and 24.12.1990. All the petitioners have joined services and are continuously discharging their duties in the service of the respondents. There is no complaint regarding their performance. However, none of the petitioners have been pai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »