Rajasthan Court November 1995 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.
Chief Executive Officer, Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mada ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ445Raj
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. In all these petitions, the petitioner i.e. The Sriganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., Sriganganagar has challenged various orders made by the authorities under the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. All petitions have been made under Section 28-A of that Act given by different employees for different reliefs. However, one common question arises in all these petitions and on the decision of that question the fate of all these cases lies. All these petitions are being decided by this common order as the question is common to all and the jurisdictional question comes to the root of all the matters.2. The relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent is not disputed. That the respondents are employees of the petitioner Sugar Mills is not disputed. That particular 'workman' as contemplated by the Industrial Disputes Act or some other beneficial Legislation cannot be disputed. The only question which arise in these cases for a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ladha Lime Products.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Raj)395
ORDERB.R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the asst. yr. 1984-85, referred the following question of law under S. 256(1) of the IT Act for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order under S. 263 of the IT Act passed by the CIT directing the ITO to add back the Sales-tax liability amounting to Rs. 92,115 and Rs. 67,459?'2. The material facts on the basis of which the above question of law is to be decided is similar to those in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 [CIT vs. Achal Dass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 [reported at (1995) 128 CTR (Raj) 325]. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court is identical with the question which was referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 [CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj] (supra) this court held as under :'The Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of unpaid Sales-ta...
Sampat Ram Budhmal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Raj)156
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The assessee, by this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :'(1) Whether the ITO was justified in initiating and completing the reassessment proceedings under s. 147(a)/148 of the Act for asst. yr. 1974-75 in the case of the assessee and whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the same ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, income had escaped assessment and the proceedings initiated under s. 147(a) were valid ?(3) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that, in view of the Supreme Court decision, the provisions of s. 147(a) get automatically attracted to the facts of the present case, when the facts of the present case and those before the Honble Supreme Court were entirely distinguishable and th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Co-operative Supply and Commission Shop ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)40
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J :The Revenue, by this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court as it arises out of the Tribunals judgment dt. 18th July, 1990 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest received by the co-operative society from 13 businessmen (non-members) on outstanding balances could qualify for exemption under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, ?'2. The contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that when the same question in the case of the assessee itself for the other assessment years has already been referred by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the Act for the opinion of the High Court then the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application and the petition filed under s. 256(1) of the Act and refusing to make a reference.3. We have considere...
Radhey Shyam and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj134; 1996(3)WLC757
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The above-named petitioners have filed this writ petition in the matter of interpretation of relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (for short UIT Act) and Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short JDA Act) and in the matter of Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1960 (for short RHB Act).2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions, briefly stated, are that the petitioners are khatedar tenants having helf share each in respect of agricultural land bearing khasra Nos. 181 and 227 measuring 2 Bighas 9 biswas in village Jhalana Doongar District Jaipur. The petitioners have been in continuous cultivatory possession of the aforesaid land since the time of their ancestors and have also constructed their residential houses over the said land which are also used for agricultural activities and for keeping of the cattle and fodder etc.3. It has been contended in the writ petitions that a resolution was passed by U.I.T. Jai...
Dinesh Kumar Daddich and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ449Raj; 1996(2)WLC549
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. Respondent No. 1, vide order dated September 1, 1993, after superseding the order dated January 29, 1990 directed that the procedure for appointment in all Government Offices/ Semi-Government Offices/ Establishments in Public Sector, which was prevalent before January 29, 1990 i.e. to invite list of candidates for selection, will continue to apply. The said order will not apply for the appointments to be made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission or for which examinations are held and to the promotions. Later on Respondent No. 2, vide its Notification dated May 11, 1995, invited list of candidates for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-II and Teacher Grade- III, from the concerned District Employment Exchanges/District Sainik Boards. The aforesaid two orders have been challenged by petitioners on the ground that they are contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules'). The petitioners have p...
Banarsi Devi and ors. Vs. Haryana Roadways and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC449; 1996(2)WLC564
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 5.5.1988 given by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, (in short 'MACT') for the enhancement of the quantum of compensation.2. Briefly, the relevant facts are that on 3.7.1984 at about 7.15 a.m. deceased Brij Mohan Sharma, aged 41 years, was going on cycle from his brother's house situated in Govindnagar, Jaipur, towards Police Lines, Jaipur. When he reached in front of Kapoor Carpet Factory, Amer Road, bus No. HYR 3504, which was being driven by respondent Hari Singh and was owned by Haryana Roadways came from Jaipur city with high speed, went on its wrong side and dashed on Brij Mohan's cycle causing him severe injuries with the result that he died instantaneously. It is alleged that respondent Hari Singh was driving the said bus negligently and carelessly and that after running over the deceased, it also dashed with an electric lamp post, which was damaged. Dharmpal, AW 3, who had wi...
Sobha Ram Vs. R.S.R.T.C.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ469Raj; 1996(2)WLC52
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. In this appeal and the appeals shown in the annexed schedule, similar questions of fact and law are involved and as such they are decided by one common judgment. For the decisions of the appeals, the facts of Civil Second Appeal No. 176/93, are mentioned.2. The plaintiff appellant was in the service of respondents as Conductor. The Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. Jodhpur, terminated his services vide order dated August 27, 1983. The appellant filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the Respondent No. 3, vide order dated July 3, 1984. In such circumstances the plaintiff appellant filed a suit in the Court of A.M.J.M. No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and prayed that the aforesaid orders be quashed and set aside, being contrary to law and principles of natural justice. It was further prayed that the plaintiff appellant be directed to be entitled to remain in service with all consequential benefits from the date his services were terminated.3. Th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rodaji Deep Chand.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)15
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1986-87 referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the Act for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unpaid sales-tax liability if paid within time allowed under Sales-tax Act although after the end of previous year of assessee, should not be disallowed by invoking provisions of s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts on the basis of which the above questions of law are to be decided are similar to those in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92, CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 [reported at (1995) 128 CTR (Raj) 325]. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court is identical with the question which were referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held that :'The Tribunal was justified in d...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bombay Motors Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Raj)286
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1986-87 referred the following questions of law under s. 256(1) of the Act for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of Rs. 2,24,449 being the unpaid sales-tax liability as on 30th June, 1986, i.e., the 1st day of previous year should not be disallowed under s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961, as the same amount was paid within the time allowed under the relevant sales-tax law ?2. Whether the amended provisions of s. 43B, introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 1988, are retrospective and are applicable to assessment year under consideration, i.e., the asst. yr. 1987-88.'2. The material facts on the basis of which the above questions of law are to be decided are similar to those in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92, CIT vs. Achal Dass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 [reported at 1995 128 CTR (Raj) 325. The questions referred for the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »