Rajasthan Court December 1992 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Surendra Singh Parihar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-31-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)605
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated May 27, 1992, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional District Judge disposed of the application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act filed by Surendra Singh Parihar.2. Plaintiff-applicant Surendra Singh was granted a contract for the provision of a miscellaneous building at Mount Abu. After the execution of the contract certain differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred for arbitration to the sole Arbitrator Mr. A.J. Kumaranthe Chief Surveyor of the Works. Both the parties presented their claims before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator passed an award for a sum of Rs. 1,14,923.92p. including the amount of interest @ 11% per annum and dismissed the remaining claim. This award was challenged by the applicant Surendra Singh on various grounds. The Union of India and the Chief Engineer, also, challenged the award before the learned Additional District ...
Rajasthan Minerals and Company Vs. Authority Under Minimum Wages Act a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ261Raj
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the ex parte order of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act-cum-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (hereinafter to be called the Authority) dated January 28, 1985 (Annexure 2) directing the payment of Rs. 9, 168.45 as difference-amount of wages (minimum paid) and Rs. 73,347.60 as compensation under Section 20, Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and also order dated August 25, 1988 (Annexure 3) of the Authority dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside the said ex parte order. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.2. On October 5, 1984 Labour Enforcement Officer (C), Bhilwara (respondent No. 2) (in short the Inspector) filed six applications under Section 20(2) of the Act in the prescribed form for direction to pay the difference of wages arising out of less payment of wages than the minimum and compensation. Their details are as follows:S NoWages periodNo. of wo...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Suman Lata Chaturvedi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ1185; 1993(3)WLC443
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act'), against the award dated 21.10.1986 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,59,200/- in all and interest thereon.2. As per the facts mentioned in the memo of appeal, on 5.11.1978, deceased Anand Mohan along with his wife Suman Lata and his daughter and sons left Jaipur for Ajmer in a taxi car bearing registration No. RST 76, of which respondent No. 9, Asu Singh (since dead), was the driver. Sumitra Pandit, respondent No. 8, is the owner of the taxi car. When the taxi car came near Sri Nagar bypass, appellant's tractor bearing registration No. RJS 1372, which was being driven by Banshi Lai, respondent No. 14, turned towards Jaipur. According to the claimants, the respondent Nos. 1 to 7, the car was hit by the tractor on the back side, with the result that the driver of the car lost his control and it hit against a truck No. RRR 4197 which c...
Darshan Singh Vs. Ghewarchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ534; AIR1993Raj126; 1993(1)WLC342; 1992(2)WLN502
K.C. Agrawal, CJ.1. For resolving the conflict as to whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a Court subordinate within the meaning of Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in between two judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, this Bench has been constituted.2. In Laxmi Narain Mishra v. Kailash Narayan Gupta, 1974 Acc CJ 79 : (AIR 1974 Raj 55) and R.S.R.T.C. v. Kalawati, 1977 Acc CJ 456 : (AIR 1977 Raj 236) this Court took the view that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court and, as such, no revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. lies against an order passed by it.3. In Dushyant Kumar v. R.S.R.T.C., (1990) 1 WLN 179 : (AIR 1990 Raj 152), the view taken by this Court was that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was a Civil Court and it is subordinate to the High Court.4. The controversy centres round a very narrow compass.5. Ghewar chand-- respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the Accidents Tribunal, Rajsamand for Rs. 6,60,0...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. A.K. Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR62(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In pursuance of the order given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated April 14, 1976, for the assessment year 1966-67 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself in computing the amount of concealed income at Rs. 5,000 as against Rs. 25,071 computed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and thus in reducing the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to a sum of Rs. 7,500 ? 2. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the penalty should be imposed on the assessee by computing on the basis of the law as obtained on the date of the assessment order and not on the basis of the law as obtained on the date of furnishing of return, i.e., May 21, 1966 ?' 2....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: [1994]205ITR478(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated November 27, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 56,493 made by the Income-tax Officer in respect of interest.'2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of India has issued a Scheme which is known as '10 per cent. Central Outright Grant or Subsidy Scheme, 1971, for industrial units to be set up in selected backward districts/areas'. This Scheme was published on August 26, 1971, in the Gazette of India and subsequent amendments were made on September 30, 1972, and June 19, 1973. According to the Scheme, if a new industrial unit is established or there is a substantial expansion of an existing industrial unit which is to be assisted by a financial instit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anand Lamps (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR733(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has sent the above two references arising out of its order. Since the questions involved in both the cases are common the same are disposed of by this single order. In Reference No. 53 of 1981, the matter relates to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 and the following question has been raised :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rental income received by the assessee was assessable under the head 'Income from business' ?'2. In Reference No. 36 of 1982, the following question has been raised:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the rental income received from the Food Corporation of India is assessable under the head 'Income from business' (sic) and in setting aside the assessment to be made afresh in the light of the Tribunal's order...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamal and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR1038(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated June 17, 1979, in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 15,865 incurred on the construction of one fountain at Urban Improvement Trust Circle, Jaipur, was a business expenditure and it could not be considered as a capital expenditure ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,619 made by the Income-tax Officer on account of interest on debit balance in the accounts of the partners ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs. 15,865 in respect of construction of a fountain at Urban Improvement Trust Circle at Jaipur as advertisement expense. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that such a huge expendit...
Magna Ram Chuoudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)292
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that order of termination of his services dated 10.9.81 (Annex. G) be declared null and void and that he be declared to be in Government service and allowed all benefits as if his services were not terminated. He has further prayed that the respondents be also directed to pass necessary orders to regularise the period of his suspension.2. The facts of this case are not such in dispute. The petitioner, who is a Post Graduate and an orthopedically handicapped person, made an application to the Social Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan for a suitable Job. The Social Welfare Department vide their letter dated 23.1.81 (Annex. A) while transmitting the said application requested the Commissioner, Transport (respondent No.3 to give appointment to the petitioner in the reserved 2% quota for the physically handicapped persons drawing the attention to the provisions of the Rajasthan Employment to Handicapped...
C.i.T. Vs. Annand Lamps (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC312; 1992WLN(UC)427
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has sent the above two References arising out of its order. Since the questions involved in both the cases are common the same are disposed of by this Single order. In Reference No. 53/81 the matter relates to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 and the following question has been raised:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rental income received by the assessee was assessable under the head 'Income from Business?'In Reference No. 36/82 the following question has been raised:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings of the CIT (Appeals) that the rental income received from the Food Corporation of India is assessable under the head 'Income from Business' and in setting aside the assessment to be made afresh in the light of the Tribunal's order dated 26.12,1979 for the assessment years 1377-78 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »