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.
Bhim Singh Vs. Panchayat Samiti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC35; 1992WLN(UC)394
Rajedra Saxena, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that order dated 1.6.1989 (Annex.4) issued by respondent No. 1 and the order dated 24.3.1989 (Arinex.3) issued by respondent No.2 be quashed and that they be directed to make payment of his salary in the regular pay scale prescribed for the post of Junior Accountant w.e.f. his date of initial appointment, on the principle of equal pay for equal work and also to regularise his services on the said post.2.The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Junior Account on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day by the Vika's Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Shergarh {Respondent No. 1) vide office order dated 25.3.1988 (Annex.2) on purely temporary basis till the regularly selected candidates were made available in pursuance of the directions given by respondent No. 2's letter dated 7.3.1988 (Annex. 1) in the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP)/Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP). This petitio...
C.i.T. Vs. Dr. A.K. Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC347; 1992WLN(UC)414
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In pursuance of the order given by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax-Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur has referred the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 14.4.1976 for the assessment year 1966-67:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITA T misdirected itself in computing the amount of concealed income at Rs. 5000/- as against Rs. 25,071/- computed by the I.A.C. and thus in reducing the penalty imposed under Section 271(1 He) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a sum of Rs. 7,500/-.(2) Whether the learned ITAT was correct in law in ho/ding that the penalty should be imposed on the assessee by computing on the basis of the law as obtained on the date of assessee order and not on the basis of law as obtained on the date of furnishing of return i.e. 21.5.1966?2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a medical practitioner' in the Government service. Th...
Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. and 3 ors. Vs. Rajasthan Textile Mazdoor Panc ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1143Raj; 1993(1)WLC678
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Of these four writ petitions, Writ Nos. 433/82 and 1025/82 arise out of Award dated January 20, 1982 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kota in Reference Case No. 89/78 and Writ Nos. 434/82 as well as 1039/82 arise out of Award dated January 20, 1982 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kota given in Reference Case No. 90/78. Although these four writ petitions relate to two workmen, Shri Makhanlal Gupta and Shri Har Prasad Saxena, the facts of all the cases relate to one common incident and the questions which have been raised in these writ petitions are identical. I am, therefore, disposing of all the four petitions by a common order.2. Facts which are necessary for the decision of these four writ petitions are that Makhanlal Gupta was appointed as Head Jobber in the service of Rajasthan Textile Mills Ltd. Bhawani-mandi, a Unit of M/'s. Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Har Prasad Saxena was appointed as Ring Sider in the service of Rajasthan Textile...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Raj)216; [1993]201ITR442(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 30, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capital gain arising from the sale of land has to be treated as long-term capital gain '2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee purchased a plot of land on March 26, 1962, for a sum of Rs. 4,650. Another piece of land was purchased by the assessee for Rs. 2,274 on July 9, 1968, the patta of which was received on January 12, 1970. The assessee has constructed a bungalow and the investment shown in the construction during the year 1968-69 was Rs. 16,000, during the year 1969-70 Rs. 50,774 and in 1970-71 Rs. 5,785. The bungalow was sold in June, 1970, to M/s. Murli Investment Co. Private Limited for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000. According to the assessing authority, the capital asset in question...
Kana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)59
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Though the learned Single Judge while being of the opinion that a larger Bench should be constituted to consider the powers of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short, the Code) has not framed point which requires authoritative pronouncement by this Court, but the question to be examined by this Full Bench is in respect of ambit and scope of Section 482 of the Code. It will be proper to state at the very outset the point which arises for adjudication by this Court. We frame the following question:Whether any other provisions of the Code including Section 397(3) in any way limit or affect the inherent powers of this Court to make any order either to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice?2. It will be proper to read Section 482 of the Code as in our opinion, primarily it is the phraseology of this Section which will determine its ambit ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Champalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: [1995]211ITR201(Raj)
V.S. Dave, J. 1. These two applications have been moved under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment years 1981-82 and 1983-84 after theapplication under Section 256(1) of the Act has been rejected, vide order dated November 6, 1990, and April 9, 1991, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, raising the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed depreciation on truck at the rate of 40 per cent. as against 30 per cent. allowed by the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The assessee is an individual carrying on business in explosives. He claimed depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent. in respect of his vehicles. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation only at the rate of 30 per cent., as according to the Income-tax Officer, the vehicles were used in his own busines...
Dr. H.C. Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC300; 1992WLN(UC)476
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3853/1989 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.2. The appellant passed M.B.B.S. examination in 1979 from he University of Rajasthan After completing his internship in the year 1980 from M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, the appellant was appointed as Resident Medical Officer on 11.12.1983 in the hospital of Rajasthan Atomic Power Station Anushaki which was under the department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. He was promoted in 1985 and, then, thereafter, again in 1989. As a result of the two promotions he became Medical Officer 'S-C and then Medical Officer 'S-D' respectively.3. As the appellant desired to obtain post-graduate degree in M.B.B.S., his name was considered for sponsorship for sending him to join post-graduate course in the faculty of Radiology with Ultra-sound/Psychiatry in any of the five Medical Colleges of Rajasthan. His name wa...
Amrinder Singh Vs. Unon of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC307; 1992WLN(UC)389
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. The writ petition has been filed by Amrinder Singh S/o Tara Singh, who is being tried for the offence under sections 4 and 5 of the Anti Hijacking Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act') in case No. ASC/Ajmer/1 /1985 pending before the Addl. Special Court (Judicial Zone Chandigarh) at Central Jail, Ajmer establishment under Section 7(2) of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984.2. Sections 4 and 5 of the aforesaid Act read as under:Section-4 Punishment for hijacking-Whoever commits the offence of hijacking shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.Section-5 Punishment for acts of violence connected with hijacking- Whoever, being a person committing the offence of hijacking of an aircraft, commits, in connection with such offence, any act of violence against any passenger or member of the crew of such aircraft, shall be punished with the same punishment with which he would have been punishable under ...
Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1016
ORDERY.R. Meena, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, dated 6-7-81 whereby he had affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under, Section 326, I.P.C.2. The necessary facts to be noticed in short are that on 24-4-1978 at 11.30 p.m. one, Hansraj lodged a report at Police Station Ghoomarwali to the effect that while the complainant was working in the field of Malsingh and accused Rajaram was working in the field of Balbirsingh, brother of Rajaram; Rajaram gave 6-7 Kassia blows at the hands, shoulders and head of the complainant Harisraj. Hansraj raised alarm and that attracted Dhoularam (P.W. 3). Therefore, injured Hansraj was brought at his house by Doularam, Bhagirath and Kasiram. On the basis of this information, a First Information Report was registered under Section 307, I.P.C. After usual investigation, challan was filed in the Court for the offence under ...
Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC114
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.79 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kota and the order dated 25.2.80 passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi. It has also prayed that demand for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,17,472.19 and Rs. 70,035.68 raised by the Central Excise Department may be quashed and the goods manufactured by the petitioner may be ordered to be classified under tariff item Nos. 18 and 18-E.2. Petitioner has stated that it is manufacturing single yarn of viscose and polyester and their blends and also cotton yarn. The petitioner purchases rayon filament yarn (duty-paid), which is used for obtaining certain type of fancy yarn. The fancy yarn does not result in manufacture of any distinct commercial commodity and no manufacturing process is involved. According to the petitioner, since no manufacturing process is involved, it is not liable to pay any duty on the fancy yarn. According to the petitioner, thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »