Rajasthan Court September 1993 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. Kashmir Boot House
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR295(Raj)
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 November 24, 1980, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 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 granting registration to the firm for the assessment year 1977-78 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-firm consisted of four partners. One of the partners, Smt. Devi Bai, expired in July, 1975. In her place, her grandson, Shri Nirmal Kumar, was taken as a partner with effect from January 1, 1975 (sic). The assessee filed an application in Form No. 11A claiming registration to the firm. The Income-tax Officer observed that profits were divided between the old partners and no profit had been given to Shri Nirmal Kumar in accordance with the new partnership deed. He, therefore, held that no genuine firm existed and accor...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kanhaiyalal Ramgopal Kawai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR248(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This reference arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in respect of theassessment year 1977-78 and the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for decision by this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax made under Section 265 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the Income-tax Officer allowed registration to the firm under Section 185 observing that the firm was genuine and the profits had been divided in the account books in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed. The Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings under Section 263 and he took the view that the profits had not been divided by the assessee in accordance with the share ratio as stated in the partnership deed dated November 4, 1975. The share of three partners,...
Rajendra Kumar Soni Vs. Authority Under Sec. 20 of Rajasthan Shops and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ1149Raj; 1994(1)WLC362
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the award dated June 20, 1992 and the order dated January 20, 1993.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Assistant with M/s. Anil Steel and Industries Ltd, Kanakpura, Jaipur and was confirmed on October 31, 1984. He was promoted on the post of Assistant Foreman and was dismissed from service on July 20, 1991. An application was filed before the Competent Authority under the provision of Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1958). The Competent Authority refused to entertain the said application vide order dated June 20, 1992 on the ground that the employer is registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1958 are not applicable. It was observed by the said authority that the petitioner may raise the industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. A review application was s...
K.M. Mohnot Vs. the Chairman, Bank of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)WLC729; 1993WLN(UC)550
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of General Manager, the Bank of Rajasthan Limited, dated 22nd of July, 1988, marked as Anx. 2, whereby the General Manager of the aforesaid Bank has ordered for the dismissal of the petitioner from services of the Respondent Bank with immediate effect as also the appellate order of the Chairman and the appellate authority of the Bank dated 6th of December, 1988, marked as Anx. 5, whereby the order of dismissal has been converted into one of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the Bank's services and the petitioner was made entitled to the payment of pension and gratuity payable to the Officers of the Bank and the order of the Board marked as Anx. 7, dated 17.7.89 where by the mercy petition of the petitioner was dismissed and the Board deprived the petitioner from the Provident Fund Contribution made by the Bank to his P.F. Account and further deprived him of the payment of gratuity. Th...
Prashant Kothari and ors. Vs. Sohan Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC625; 1993WLN(UC)471
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.8.1991 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Cr. case No. 106/91, whereby he took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. against the petitioners on a private complaint filed by respondent Sohan Lal Patni.2. Succinctly stated the relevant facts are that on 21.8.1991, respondent Sohan Lal filed a Criminal complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioners on the basis of a new item titled published on 31st July, 1991 in, the Jodhpur Edition of Rajasthan Patrika. Petitioners No. 1 & 2 Prashant Kothari and Milap Chandra Kothari are Manager and Editor of Rajasthan Patrika, Jodhpur and Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur respectively, while petitioner No. 3 Bhagwan Sahai Trivedi is the Editor of Rajasthan Patrika, Jodhpur. Petitioner No. 5 Mahavir Jain is the Correspondent, Rajasthan Patrika. Petitioner No. 4 has not been named ...
Bishna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)269
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.7.1993 passed by the Board of Revenue by which the appeal filed by the respondent No. 5 was allowed and allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.2. Brief relevant facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Suratgarh vide his order dated 21.4.1984 allotted 13 Bighas of land to the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 filed a complaint to the respondent No. 4 stating that the petitioner has obtained allotment of land by concealing material facts and as such the allotment be cancelled. After inquiry the respondent No. 4 vide his order dated 17.10.1985 came to the conclusion that at the time when the allotment was made, the petitioner was holding 24 Bighas and 4 Biswas of land. He was of the view that the petitioner concealed these facts and on this ground, he cancelled the allotment...
Shyam Oil Co. (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)408
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These four Special Appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23rd March, 1993, whereby the learned Judge has decided S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1838 of 1992 Sarvottam Vegetable Products v. State of Rajasthan and other writ petitions mentioned above. All these appeals are directed against this very common judgment rendered by the learned single Judge and hence these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these appeals briefly stated are that the petitioner Companies are manufacturers and/or dealers in edible oils. Some of the petitioner-appellants are manufacturers and dealer of the stainless steel sheets. The appellants made some inter-state sales of aforesaid goods i.e. edible oils and stainless steel sheets to various purchasing dealers of Bombay and Gujarat. In most of the goods the sale transactions took place through commission-agents. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.L. Kasliwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Raj)56; [1994]207ITR208(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated April 23, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,000 made on account of advantage derived from the premises 'Bairathi Bhawan' ?'2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a partner of a firm, Messrs. Gem Palace, Jaipur. The firm had taken on lease Bairathi Bhawan at M. I. Road, Jaipur. The premises were remodelled at the cost of Rs. 1,98,890 up to Diwali, 1976. One-third of the premises is occupied by the assessee which is free of rent. The assessee offered to the Income-tax Officer an amount of Rs. 4,000 to be assessed in his hands on this account. The Income-tax Officer did not accept this amount offered and included the benefit in the hands of the assessee at Rs. 9,000. The reason was that in the previous year, ...
Aad Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC569; 1993WLN(UC)359
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioners are the Khatedars of lands in Square No. 54 and 55 and Killas No. 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 in Square No. 61 of Chak 23-HMH, Tehsil-Hanumangarh. The Collector vide his Order dated November 17, 1971 (Annexure/1) sanctioned a way in favour of the petitioners through the land situated at Stone N. 100/291 parallel to canal for going to aabadi of Chak 23-22 HMH. In pursuance of the said Order the way was opened and mutation was made in the revenue-records. The land admeasuring 5 Bighas situated at No. 100/291 at Chak No. 23 HMH was allotted to respondents No. 3 and 4 in December 1982.2. On June 17, 1983 on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 an application was moved before the S.D.O. Hanumangarh alleging that the present petitioners, by securing cancellation of already existing way have got a new way sanctioned in their favour through their land and has opened its way on June 12, 1983. They prayed that the newly opened way be closed.3. In reply to the said applicati...
Hanja and ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Ahir and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1993
Reported in: II(1995)ACC213
M.B. Sharma, J.1. With the consent of the parties I proceed to dispose of this writ petition.2. The petitioner Smt. Hanja is wife of Shanker Singh and other petitioners are sons and daughter of Shanker Singh who died out of use of a motor vehicle in an accident which took place On May 21,1984. A claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act) was filed by the petitioners herein in the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer on October 30,1984 within six months, the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. In the said claim petition the petitioners had arrayed Jaipur Golden Transport Company as respondent as the owner of the truck No. RRG-465 5. In the reply to the said claim petition filed by Jaipur Golden Transport Company, the said company came out with a case that it was not the registered owner of the vehicle and as such they were not liable to pay any amount. The petitioners thereafter made an enquiry and they are said to have inspected the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »