Rajasthan Court March 1993 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramesh Chand Gopi Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR332(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated October 10, 1980, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the licence fee deficiency of Rs. 37,250 debited to the goods account is allowable expenditure ?'2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the above points are that the assessee is a liquor contractor and as per the terms and conditions of the licence, the assessee was required to lift a minimum quantity of liquor from the Government. The assessee has failed to lift the stipulated minimum quantity and there was deficiency in lifting to the extent of Rs. 37,250 for which the Government could make recovery from the assessee. This amount of Rs. 37,250 was claimed by the assessee as business expendit...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Synchem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR298(Raj); 1994(3)WLC383
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated April 28, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in law in disallowing inaugural expenses of Rs. 22,863 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company claimed expenses of Rs. 1,01,934 under the head 'Inaugural expenses'. The Income-tax Officer allowed a sum of Rs. 79,071 which were in the nature of advertisement expenses. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 22,863 and rejected the contention of the assessee that the said expenses were incurred for popularising the company's products or for carrying on the business. It was submitted that a number of distinguished guests including Ministers, press parties as well as future customers were invited ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan High Court Vs. Radha Mohan Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3182; 1993(2)WLC27
M.R. Balla, J.1. A Civil Revision Petition i.e. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 585/1991, Rajasthan Sports Council and Ors. v. Aam Janta Shaher, Jaipur was listed before the single Bench of Justice R. S. Kejriwal on 18-9-1991. In this revision petition, respondent Radha Mohan Lal claims to espouse the cause of general public in the dispute with the Rajasthan Sports Council with regard to the alleged destroying of an ancient pucca tar road under the nomenclature of 'Shri Govind Deoji Ka Rasta'. Respondent Shri Sua Lal Yadav is appearing as counsel of Radha Mohan Lal in this revision petition. On, 19-9-1991, Justice R.S. Kejriwal recorded as under and placed the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice:-'19/9/1991.S. B. Civil Revision Petition 585/1991, Rajasthan State Sports Council v. Aam Janta, Jaipur was fixed for final disposal, in admission before the Court on 18-9-1991. On that day, the non-petitioner Radha Mohan with his counsel Shri S.L. Yadav was present and they submitted an a...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2688
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this Habeas Corpus Petition, has challenged the legality of the order of detention dated October 2, 1992, passed by the District Magistrate, Banner, and the order Annexure 7, passed by the State Government confirming the order dated 2-10-92, by which the District Magistrate, Barmer, ordered for the detention of the petitioner as his activities were found prejudicial to the security of the 'State' and it was, therefore, found necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in such manner.2. The facts, which necessitated the Detaining Authority to order for the detention of the petitioner and to pass the impugned order dated 2-10-92, are that as per the confidential reports of the Military Intelligence, Barmer, dated 5-5-92 and 1-10-92, and the reports dated 1-10-92, 11-10-92 and 14-1-92 of the Border Security Force, Barmer, the petitioner was found engaged in the espionage activities and supplying important strategical informations to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoor Singh Vs. the Dist. Magistrate and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2217
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this Habeas Corpus petition, has challenged the legality of the order dated October 2, 1992 (Annexure 1), passed by the District Magistrate, Barmer, under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') by which the learned District Magistrate, Barmer, after being satisfied that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the 'State', ordered for his detention in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The petitioner has, also, challenged the order of confirmation Annexure 8 dated 26-11-92, passed by the Government of Rajasthan, confirming the order of detention Annexure 1 passed by the Detaining Authority, i.e., the District Magistrate, Barmer.2. The facts which necessiated the District Magistrate, Barmer, to pass the order Annexure-1 to 2-10-92, are that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the security of the State. As per the confidential report received from the Military Intelligence, Barmer, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdeo and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)76
M.R. Calla, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, Camp Laxmangarh, framing charges against the petitioners for offences Under Sections 147, 323 and 302/149 I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 77/89. The order dated 18.5.1992 framing charges against the petitioners is reproduced as under:18-5-92,fM'kuy ih- ih- mifLFkr Aeqyfteku cnuflag] ;knjke] fHkDdh] jkenso] izHkqn;ky tekur mifLFkr Aeqyfteku cnuflag] ;knjke] fHkDdh dks /kkjk 302] 147] 149@302 o 323 vkbZ-ih-lh- dk vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkdj lquk;k x;k ftUgksus vijk/k vLohdkj fd;k vkSj vUoh{kk pkgh A eqfYteku jkenso] izHkqn;ky ij /kkjk 347] 302@149] 323 vkbZ-ih-lh- dk vkjski lquk;k o le>k;k x;k vUoh{kk pkgh AxokgkuA Vw 4 t;sZ tekuoh okjUV 100@& ls ryc gks A i=koyh okLrs lk{; es fnukad 24-7-92 dks is'k gks A2. On 22nd June, 1989, an FIR No. 74/89 was registered at Police Station Kathumar, on the basis of a written report filed by the complainant Ramdayal S...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Singh Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)182
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this Habeas Corpus Petition, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order of detention dated 2.10.92, passed by the District Magistrate, Barmer, by which the petitioner was ordered to be detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act as his activities were found prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the 'State', he was ordered to be detained in Central Jail, Jodhpur.2. The facts which necessitated the Detaining Authority to pass the order on 2.10.92 ordering for the detention of the petitioner, are that from the confidential reports dated 15.5.92 and 1.10.92, received from the Military Intelligence, Barmer, the petitioner was found engaged in espionage and an active agent of Pakistan's Secret Agency F.I.U. In the confidential report dated 22.4.92 of B.S.F., Barmer, the petitioner was found crossing borders and going to Pakistan ca...
Tag this Judgment!Bawla Khan Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)170
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner by this Habeas Corpus Petition, has challenged the legality of the order dated October 2, 1992 (Annexure. 1) passed by the District Magistrate, Barmer, under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act'), by which the learned District Magistrate, Barmer, after being satisfied that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the 'State' ordered for his detention in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The petitioner has, also, challenged the order of confirmation Annexure. 8 dated 17.11.92, passed by the Government of Rajasthan, confirming the order of detention Annexure. 1 passed by the Detaining Authority, i.e., the District Magistrate, Barmer.2. The facts which necessitated the District Magistrate, Barmer, to pass the order Annexure. 1 on 2.10.92, are that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the State. As per the confidential reports received from the Military Intelligence Bureau, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambassador Dry Cleaners Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR292(Raj)
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. Briefly stated, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner, which came up for orders on second stay application on May 17, 1991 . No reply, as yet, had been filed by the respondents, but with the consent of both the parties, it was finally decided, on the same day. Thereafter, the abovementioned miscellaneous application dated May 23, 1991, was filed, with a prayer to modify the aforesaid order on the grounds mentioned therein. Mr. G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the respondents, during the course of proceedings, on October 22, 1992, requested that since no reply has been filed on behalf of the Revenue, an opportunity may be given to file a reply to the writ petition, to which learned counsel for the petitioner had no objection. The time for filing the reply was granted from time to time and the reply was filed on March 16, 1993. The order dated May 17, 1991 was recalled and the matter was heard again on March 18, 1993.2. It is submitted by Mr. Anant Kasliwal, l...
Tag this Judgment!indra Kumar Vs. Judge, Labour Court
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1104Raj; 1993(2)WLC76
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This case brings forth a very sorry state of affairs in the Presiding Officer/Officers of the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur. The petitioner is a workman and was allegedly working as Beldar in the year 1982 under Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaipur Sub-division Nos. 2 and 4. The services of the petitioner are said to have been terminated under oral termination order dated January 1, 1984 and he raised an industrial dispute after conciliation proceedings which failed and the matter was referred to the State Government and the Secretary, Department of Labour, and reference was made as far back as in September, 1985 to the learned Judge, Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute.2. A perusal of the certified copy of the order-sheets will show that the representative of the workman appeared on November 18, 1985, the case proceeded for securing the presence of the employer. The workman was asked to submit a copy of the claim as well as registration charges for se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »