Rajasthan Court March 1994 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. Vimal Kumar Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR620(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. These reference applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have been submitted against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi, dated June 28, 1983, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 on the ground that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in referring the matter to this court under Section 256(1) of the Act, vide its order dated January 10, 1984. The questions which were raised under Section 256(1) were as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified :-- (i) in holding that the proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not sustainable in law ? (ii) in holding that there was no information justifying action under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act ? (iii) in holding that the Income-tax Officer could not have made an assessment after having reopened the proceedings under Section 147(a)/147(b) and to give effect to the ...
Mohan Lal Vs. Jodhpur Central Cooperative Batik and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC204; 1994(1)WLN175
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common questions of law although they are based on different facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common Order/Judgment.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these two writ petitions briefly stated are as follows:FACTS OF BIRMA RAM CHOUDHARY'S CASE:3. Petitioner Birmaram was initially appointed as a Class IV employee in the Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jodhpur in the year 1971 and is still continuing on the said post working in its Phalodi Branch. He was confirmed on the post of Class IV employee vide Order Annexure-1 dated 15.2.1974. This confirmation order was made in pursuance of the decisions of the Board of Direction of the respondent Bank in their meeting held on 14.1.1974. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner applied for leave on medical grounds from 5.6.1989 to 13.6.1989. Alongwith his application for grant of medical leave, he also filed a medical certificate iss...
Daya Nand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN320
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Since a common challenge has been made to the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the posts of Tehsildar which that has led to non-selection and consequential reversion of the petitioners, these petitions are being decided by a common order.2. In brief, facts of writ petition No. 31/94 Daya Nand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. are that the petitioner had joined service as Naib Tehsildar on being appointed on that post by order dated, 21.9.85 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer in pursuance of selection made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner was confirmed as Naib Tehsildar w.e.f. 29.5.88. His name was placed at serial No. 98 in the seniority list of Naib Tehsildars issued on 6.4.90. On 29th June, 1990, he was posted as Tehsildar. The Departmental Promotion Committee which met in 1990 recommended petitioner's promotion as Tehsildar against the vacancies of 1990-91 and on the recommendatio...
Sita Ram Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC177; 1994(1)WLN374
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Although this petition has been filed by the petitioner simply for enforcing the principle of equal pay for equal work and for issue of a direction to the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner in the regular pay scale and even though the petitioner has come forward with a case that in the cases of similarly situated persons this Court has given directions for payment of salary according to the principle of equal pay for equal work, I have decided to consider the case in a large perspective because the learned Counsel for the petitioner has come forward with the plea that even though no post of Class IV servant is available and even though the petitioner may have been appointed in contravention of law, the Court must give relief.2. The petitioner has come forward with a plea that he was engaged as a daily wage employee by the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan Jaipur in November, 1992. He was made to discharge duties as Class-IV servant and was paid ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›