Rajasthan Court April 1996 Judgments
Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar (Late His Highness) Vs. Income- ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR192(Raj); 1996(1)WLN695
Anshuman Singh, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated March 18, 1996, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, on stay Applications Nos. 18 and 19/(JP) of 1996 arising out of Estate Duty Appeal No. 1/(JP) of 1996 and Wealth-tax Appeals Nos. 6 to 12/(JP) of 1996 for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1990-91 and 1992-93 directing the petitioner to deposit 25 per cent. of the outstanding demand payable under the Estate Duty Act and the Wealth-tax Act for the years under appeal on or before April 30, 1996. The recovery of the balance outstanding demand under both the Acts for the years under appeal has been stayed till the disposal of appeals by the impugned order. The present petition came up for admission on April 18, 1996, however, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner it was ordered to be listed on April 19, 1996. In view of the fact that the Tribunal itself directed the appeals to b...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3265; 1996(3)WLC106; 1996(1)WLN130
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the case diary.3. According to the medical report the age of the prosecutrix was between 16 to 17 years on the date of incident.4. Main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant before me is that from the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it is evident that the girl did not raise any objection either at the place of incident or at Udaipur. She was also moving with accused persons from Udaipur to Ahmedabad and Ahmedabad to Bombay without raising any objection. The aforesaid conduct of the prosecutrix is sufficient to prove her consent. Thus no offence under Section 366A of IPC of kidnapping of a minor girl is made out against accused applicant.5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that accused applicant Pankaj has not committed offence under Section 376 of IPC with prosecutrix. The main accused who is alleged to have committed offence under Section 366A of IPC read with 376 IPC has already...
Tag this Judgment!Gopa Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2987; 1996(2)WLC654
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. In village Doli, there were two factions - one led by the deceased Chutara Ram, and another led by Chima, father of the accused appellant Gopa Ram. Both factions were engaged in litigation and were inimically disposed. A day earlier to the incident i.e., on 23-5-77 one Surjan Ram called Chutara Ram and his brother Sajan Ram to attend the function organised by him. Both of them attended the function. Accused Gopa Ram also attended the function but did not take the ceremonial-meals with Chutara Ram or his brother Sajan Ram. Both factions had ostracised each other from the community and exchanged hot words at the function also. Next day, i.e. on 24-5-77 at about 4.30 P.M., Chutara Ram and P.W. 5 Joga Ram left for their homes. At Hamir's field, accused Gopa Ram along with other co-accused Uda Ram, Chhoga Ram, Dheema Ram, Gumana Rap and Pokar Ram came in a tractor. Gopa Ram was carrying a 'dhariya' while the other accused-appellants were armed with lathis. Gopa Ram got d...
Tag this Judgment!His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar Vs. Income Ta ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)97; 1996WLC(Raj)UC226
ORDERANSHUMAN SINGH, J. :This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dt. 18th March, 1996 passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur on Stay Applications Nos. 18 and 19/Jp/1996 arising out of EDA No. 1/Jp/96 and WTA No. 6 to 12/Jp/1996 for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1990-91 and 1992-93 directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the outstanding demand payable under the ED Act and WT Act for the years under appeal on or before 30th April, 1996. The recovery of the balance outstanding demand under both the Acts for the years under appeal has been stayed till the disposal of appeals by the impugned order. The present petition came up for admission on 18th April, 1996. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner it was ordered to be listed on 19th April, 1996. In view of the fact that the Tribunal itself directed the appeals to be fixed for hearing in the second week of May, 1996 it was thought proper to dispose of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Mantri, Khadi Mandir Vs. Labour Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC96; 1996(1)WLN143
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Late Shri Kaniidan was an employee of Khadi Mandir, Bikaner. By order dated 29.09.72, his services were terminated and on an industrial dispute being raised, the matter was referred for consideration by the Labour Court. On 29.01.75, an award was passed by the Labour Court where under the termination of services of Shri Kaniidan was held to be illegal and invalid and the Labour Court directed reinstatement with all back-wages. The award was sent for publication. While passing the award, no interest was directed to be paid. The petitioner challenged the award of the Labour Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1360/76. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed. Late Shri Kamidan moved an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, to be called the Act' hereinafter) claiming an amount of Rs. 92,065/- on the ground that inspite of the order passed by the Labour Court and dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, he was eith...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Swaroop Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC624; 1996(1)WLN259
M.G. Mukherji, Actg. C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated November 14, 1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2344/90.2. The writ petitioner-respondent Swaroop Ram filed a writ application impugning show cause notices dated 31.5.1990 and 1.6.1990 issued by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur contending inter-alia that the said Joint Registrar had no authority to issue such show cause notices. The show cause notices were issued by the Joint Registrar in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 32(1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. According to the provisions of the said Act, if in the opinion of the Registrar, any resolution passed at the meeting of any Cooperative Society or Committee thereof, was opposed to the objects of the Society or was prejudicial to the interest of the Society, the Registrar, after giving the Cooperative Society an o...
Tag this Judgment!Girdharilal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR510(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was directed vide order dated April 4, 1979, to refer the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated December 29, 1973 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly included the value of the material supplied by Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Instrumentation Ltd. to the assessee for calculating the gross profit rate ? 2, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that estimating the income of the assessee no allowance need be given for security deposits deducted from the running bills of the assessee ?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee received gross payments of Rs. 19,74,903 from Hindustan Copper Ltd., Khetri, and Rs. 2,15,726 from Instrumentation Ltd., Kota, for the works done for them. The payments of Rs. 19,74,903 were made up as under :(Rs.)(1) Net payments received 14,19,516 (2) Amount received by way of adj...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR698(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 28, 1984, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction of Rs. 8,29,518 being export expenses and Rs. 7,68,512 being export freight under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 35B of Rs. 8,29,518 in respect of expenses and Rs. 7,68,512 in respect of export freight. The dispute in the present case pertains to the assessment year 1976-77. Section 35B has been omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989. Sub-clauses (iii) and (viii) of the aforesaid section are as under :Sub-clause (iii) : 'distribution, supply or provision outside India of such goods, services or faciliti...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Lal Sharma Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN98
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Against the award dt. 27.7.87 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur in industrial dispute case No. 3/82. The petitioner workman Shanker Lal filed S.B.C.W.Pet. No. 2739/87 and the petitioner State of Rajasthan and Ors. have filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No, 2699/87.2. The workman was a union leader, his services were terminated by an order dt. 30.4.1981 Annex. 7 on the ground that as many as 19 charges levelled against the workman were found to be proved during the enquiry by the Enquiry officer. Though the charge sheet was filed against the workman, he did not reply to it. After the receipt of the enquiry report dt. 3.11.1980, a show cause notice dt. 4.4.1981 was issued, the same also remained unreplied. Thereafter, the petitioner's services were terminated by the impugned order dt. 30.4.1981. The industrial dispute was raised and referred to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication. The learned Tribunal found that out of 19 charges levelled and proved again...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Agrawal and Sons and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN268
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being decided by this common order. In all these writ petitions, 'the policy of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti') for allotment of shops constructed by the Samiti, by 'rent auction' on the instructions of the State, is under challenge. For the purpose of deciding the point in issue, facts and documents are referred from S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2557/95 and 450/96 as the facts are similar in other writ petitions barring minor details, which are not relevant.2. The State of Rajasthan established Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar, in exercise of the powers conferred Undr Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act. Order 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The State Govt. vide notification issued Under Section 5(1) of the Act declared the boundaries of the principal market yard at Sriganganagar for c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »