Rajasthan Court April 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.
Rajasthan Mineral Development Corpn., Udaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj37; 1995(2)WLC709
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for issuing a mandamus directing the State Government to comply with the final order Annx. 4 dated 24-5-88 passed by the Central Government in exercise of its revisional power under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with Rule 55 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 setting aside the deemed rejection of the petitioner's transfer application dated 1-4-87 move under Minor Mineral Concessions Rules arising out of the State Government failure to pass order within 12 months.2. By the aforesaid order Annx. 4 to the writ petition, the Central Government in exercise of its statutory powers directed the State Government to pass final order on merits within 200 days of the date of communication of the said order.3. It is true that the aforesaid order passed by the Central Government was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the State ...
Vinod Talkies Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj4; 1995(3)WLC260; 1995(1)WLN489
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned assessment orders and demand notices dt. 6-12-1985, Annexures 2, 3, 4 and 5. It has been prayed that the order dt. 21-4-1988 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, may kindly bequashed. The petitioner has further prayed that it may be held that the petitioner was fully covered by the Notification dt. 3-3-1982 (Anx. 1) and was entitled to exemption from payment of Entertainment Tax.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he took on lease one 'Nohra' from one Mangi Lal Rathi and constructed a Cinema House of ordinary construction after investing substantial amount of money. It is alleged that the non-petitioner No. 3 inspected the Cinema House on 30-10-1982. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-firm and ultimately assessment order dt. 6-12-1982 was passed for the month of October, 1982 and November, 1982 hol...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rathi Steel Traders
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR112(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated January 16, 1991, in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of Rs. 20,680, being the unpaid sales tax liability as on June 30, 1986, i.e., the last day of the previous year, should not be disallowed under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the same amount was paid within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law ? 2. Whether the amended provisions of Section 43B introduced with effect from April 1, 1988, are retrospective and are applicable to the assessment year under consideration, i.e., the assessment year 1987-88 ' 2. The above controversy is concluded by the decision given by this court in the case of CIT v. Achaldas Dhanraj (D.B. Income-tax Refer...
Sangeeta Pathak Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC44; 1995(2)WLN300
Arun Madan, J.1. This special appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, arises out of the order, dated 25th June, 1991, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 1858/1991; whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits.2. The facts giving rise to the filling of this appeal briefly stated, are that in pursuance of the Advertisement issued by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vide Notification, dated 12th January, 1990, the petitioner-appellant applied for the post of PBX Operator. She was called for interview which was held at Jodhpur on 3rd March, 1990. Selection Committee interviewd the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates. The petitioner-appellant was found suitable and appointed as PBX Operator at Jaipur Bench of this Court in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1680 for period of six months on temporary basis vide order, dated 5th March, 1990 (Annex. 1). It was stated that the appella...
Munnoram Vs. Hariram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj1
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. Notice were issued in both these petitions to the Chief Secretary of theState of Rajasthan and others as both the learned Advocates, Mr. H. S. Balot and Mr. R. S. Gill, appearing for the respective petitioners in their matters, on earlier occasion insisted to address this Court only in Hindi. The petitions with Annexures are also in Hindi. Initially, to some extent, the feeling of the members of the Bar was also that all proceedings in this High Court should only be in Hindi, and they should be allowed to address the Court only in Hindi in view of the Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan on February 14, 1950, whereby the Governor, with the previous consent of the President of India, permitted the use of Hindi language in proceedings in the High Court of Rajasthan, to the extent permissible under Article 348 (2) of the Constitution.2. It was tried to be argued that after issuance of the Government Notification dated February 14, 1950, the official ...
Ghasi Khan Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ74Raj; 1996(1)WLC379; 1995(1)WLN588
Arun Madan, J. 1. The petitioner who is an Ex-driver of the respondent Corporation i.e. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC'), filed this writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Workers and Work-shop Employees Standing Orders, 1965.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver with the respondent Corporation vide order dated January 9, 1976 (Annex-1), In the year 1983, a mishap occurred resulting in head injury to the petitioner while performing official duties with the respondent- Corporation, as a result of which the petitioner was hospitalised. Consequently, on January 26, 1984, the petitioner had submitted an application to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Kota, praying therein that he may be reliev...
Agarwal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Raj)9; [1997]225ITR901(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated November 27, 1986, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ;' 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that till the period of five years from the date of grant of the subsidy is not completed its nature is that of a loan from the Government ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that deduction under Section 80J on the subsidy amount would not be available as the said amount was not assessee's own capital contribution ?' 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80J by treating the opening balance of subsidy amounting to Rs. 4,31,340 as part of the capital employed by the firm. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that the subsidy which is granted to the assessee as a percentage of the investment made in the indus...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Radha Madhav Gum Factory
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR355(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated December 19, 1988, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in : (a) holding that cash compensatory support for export is not taxable as revenue receipt ? (b) holding that the amount of Central Government subsidy is not deductible from the money cost to the assessee of its plant, machinery and building while computing the original cost thereof under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of allowing depreciation, etc. ?' 2. The facts regarding cash compensatory support for export are that the assessee is a partnership-firm and during the previous year relevant to the assessment year received cash incentive of Rs. 50,150 on exports made by it which was included by the Income-tax ...
Sugan Chand Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC118; 1995(2)WLN418
J.R. Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Suganchand has challenged the validity of Rule 250 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules') and Regulation 4(2) of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Regulations) and has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay him pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by him as Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (to be called as 'RPSC').2. The facts, necessary to be noticed, for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are: that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Govt. College in the year 1965 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head of the Department vide order Annexure-1 dated 7.5.1987 with effect from 1.4.1986 in the pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5700. Later on, he was appointed as Member of the RPSC...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›