Rajasthan Court January 1996 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.
Mohan Singh Vs. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR771]; (1996)IILLJ551Raj
ORDER1. This special appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition and upholding the order of dismissal from service.2. The appellant was employed as a driver in the respondent factory declared as relief undertaking under the provisions of Rajasthan Relief Undertaking (Special Provision) Act, 1961.3. He was residing in the Company accommodation within its premises. He was on weekly holiday on September 11, 1983. On account of some emergent work, he was called at about 9.00 a.m. for duty. He told the management that he would go for duty only in case he was paid overtime at double the rate of wages.4. The Company informed him that on account of its financial constraints no such overtime wages could be paid, but he would be given a weekly holiday on any other working day. This was not accepted by him. He disobeyed the order of the authorities and refused to go on duty.5. Treating this act of the appellant as a misconduct a charge...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chhagan Lal GuptA.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)419
B. R. ARORA, J. :The Revenue, by this application made under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in remanding the case to the WTO for valuation of property as per, Schedule III of the Act whereas the said Schedule became effective from 1st April, 1989 and the assessment had already been completed much before this date ?'2. The assessee and Bhanwar Lal Gupta, Vidhyasagar Gupta and Sunder Lal Gupta are the co-owners of the factory called 'Jindal General Manufacturing Company' situated at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. The assessee filed the return under the WT Act for various years. The WTO accepted the total value of the suit property at Rs. 36,54,000 in each of the years under consideration on the basis of the report of the DVO. Dissatis...
Ram Chander Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC158; 1996(1)WLN589
Arun Madan, J.1. Since the question of law raised in both the writ petitions is identical, therefore, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The question of law which has arisen for consideration of this Court in both the writ petitions is as to whether a work-charge employee of Public Works Department (B & R) (for short PWD) is entitled to grant of pensionary benefits on completion of qualifying service on reaching the age of superannuation and whether the Department in which the petitioners have rendered their services as work-charge employees is justified in not counting the period of service rendered by the petitioners for the purpose of' pensionary benefit on the ground that they were daily-wage employees and hence not entitled to pensionary benefits Another question which has arisen for consideration of this Court is whether the benefit of full pension as per Rule 179 of the Rajasthan Service Rules should not be extended...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sunder Lal Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR729(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in remanding the case to the Wealth-tax Officer for valuation of property as per Schedule III whereas such Schedule is effective from April 1, 1989, so applicable for the assessment year 1989-90 and onwards ?'2. The controversy and the dispute in this petition relates to the valuation of the share of the assessee in an immovable property, namely, 'Jindal General Manufacturing Company, Delhi' which is situated at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. The assessee was assessed for his share in this property at Rs. 16,19,000 in each year of assessment by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the report of the District Valuation Off...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Chhagan Lal Gupta,
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR729(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Revenue, by these four applications made under Section 27(5) of the Wealth-tax Act, has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to state the case and refer the following identical question of law in all the four cases for the opinion of the High Court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in remanding the case to the Wealth-tax Officer, for valuation of the property as per Schedule III whereas such Schedule is effective from April 1, 1989, so applicable for the assessment year 1989-90 and onwards ?'2. The assessees, Chhagan Lal Gupta, Bhanwar Lal Gupta, Vidhya Sagar Gupta and Sunder Lal Gupta are the co-owners of the factory called 'Jindal General Manufacturing Company' situated at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. All the co-owners filed their separate returns under the Wealth-tax Act for various years. The Wealth-tax Officer accepted...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chhagan Lal Gupta (Also Cwt V. Vidhya S ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)422
B. R. ARORA, J. :The Revenue, by these four applications made under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to state the case and refer the following identical question of law in all the four cases for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in remanding the case to WTO for valuation of the property as per Schedule III whereas such Schedule is effective from 1st April, 1989 so applicable for asst. yr. 1989-90 and onwards ?'2. The assessee Chhagan Lal Gupta, Bhanwar Lal Gupta, Vidhyasagar Gupta and Sunder Lal Gupta are the co-owners of the factory called 'Jindal General Manufacturing Company' situated at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. All the co-owners filed their separate returns under the WT Act for various years. The WTO accepted the total value of the suit property at Rs. 36,54,000 in each of the years under consideration on the basis of t...
K.K. Complex (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC306; 1996(1)WLN575
A.P. Ravani, C.J.1. Both these Special Appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4483/93 decided on May 16, 1994 (Coram: Mrs. Mohini Kapur, J.) and is SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3120/94 decided on June 3, 1994 (Coram : Arun Madan, J.).2. In substance, the Appeals relate to the liability of the appellant-petitioner company to pay the land and building tax in respect of the property known as the Old State Garrage, purchased by it in public auction held by the Jaipur Development Authority on January 8, 1992.3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows-The Jaipur Development Authority put up for auction the lease hold rights for 99 years in respect of the property known as the Old State Motor Garrage, situated at M.I. Road. Promoters of the company participated in the auction and highest bid was of Rs. 13 crore 17 lakh. The auction was confirmed. Thereafter the promoters formed the company. The company paid certain a...
Kanchan Tyagi Alias Rajeshwari Tyagi and ors. Vs. Mohd. Ishak Saddique ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC651; 1997ACJ874; 1996(2)WLC508; 1996(1)WLN117
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the award dated 30.1.1990 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (in short, 'the Tribunal'), awarding compensation for an amount of Rs. 4,86,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition in favour of appellants and against the respondents. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.2. For the disposal of this appeal, it would suffice to mention that on 18.1.1987 at about 5.30 a.m. the deceased Pramod Kumar was going from Delhi to Jaipur on National Highway No. 8 by car No. DHC 3419, that when he reached about 10 km. from hahpura, truck No. GRN 3754, which was being driven by Mohd. Ishaq, respondent No. 1 and owned by Usman Gani Ibrahim, respondent No. 2, collided with the said car coming on the wrong side of the road and that Pramod Kumar sustained fatal injuries and died. It is alleged that the said truck was being driven ra...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manakchand.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR959(Raj)
Heared learned counsel for the petitioner.The Revenue has moved this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), with the prayer that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to refer the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in not deciding the issue raised in the grounds of appeal and in upholding the cancellation of penalty of Rs. 25,237 revised under section 271(1)(a) on the other grounds that no tax was payable after the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the quantum appeal whereas the order of the Tribunal is sub judice before the High Court under section 256(2) ?'An application under section 256(1) of the Act was moved before the Tribunal with the prayer that the above noted question may be referred for the opinion of the High Court. The Tribunal dismissed that applicati...
Gopi Ram Lila Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR320(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the assessee, for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1973-74 and 1975-76 (R. A. No. 107 to 110/JP/85) has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act and taking action under Section 147 accordingly (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding additions made to the income declared on the ground of lesser agricultural expenses shown as income from other sources and rejecting the assessee's contention that this could be only added as being the agricultural income of the assessee 2. The Tribunal, for the assessment year 1977-78 (RA No. 106/JP/85), also referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »