Rajasthan Court April 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.
Mansi Mathur Vs. Registrar, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj162
ORDERAnshuman Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 226 to the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner in any of the Engineering College under the reserved category of Defence Killed or permanently disabled in action during hostilities/wars of during peace time and for quashing the --decision of the respondents cancelling the candidature of the petitioner.2. The facts as stated in the petition briefly are that the petitioner qualified All India Senior School Certificate Examination, 1995 from the Central Board of Secondary Education, and secured high grade. The respondent-University issued a Notification/ Information booklet in relation to Pre-Engineering Test (PET), 1995, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is averred that the father of the petitioner is serving as Lt. Col. in Indian Army who has been categorised as permanent disabled. His disability is direct a...
Gulia @ Gulsher and anr. Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN162
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Both these petitions raise similar points and therefore were heard together and are being decided together by this common order. 2. In D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.3429/95, petitioner Gulia Gulsher was detained earlier in the year 1992 under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, which was ultimately revoked on the basis of Advisory Board's report. The petitioner was again detained by the Order of the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer on August 13,1995 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). This Order was based on a complaint dated August 13, 1995 lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer and the order was approved by the State Government on August 23, 1995. The petitioner's case was considered by the Advisory Board on September 14, 1995 but it appears that it did not recommend revocation of the Order of detention. The petitioner has challenged his detention order on ...
A.N. Ansari Vs. Raj. High Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC329; 1996(1)WLN96
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner, who is working as a Private Secretary in the Rajasthan High Court has filed this writ petition praying that the respondent No. 1, Rajasthan High Court, be directed to pay honorarium/additional pay to the petitioner at the rate of 27.5% of the total of basic pay for typing out the statements of the witnesses in election petitions and in the alternative prayed that in case this Court does not find it proper to pay honorarium to the petitioner then the respondent may be restrained from taking his services for typing out the statements of the witnesses as the same is not the part of his duty.2. Before filing this petition, the petitioner made several representations in this behalf in 1984, 1985 and 1986 and lastly he made representation in 1987 and thereafter he filed this petition. This itself is a ground to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of gross delay and laches. The petitioner cannot go on making representations and wait for years if the repr...
Assam Roller Flour Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR43(Raj)
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), to this court for its opinion the following questions, viz :''1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the imports made by the applicant during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1979-80 were contraband in view of the Collector of Customs order dated April 13, 1978, and the appellate authority (CBR) order dated . . . and so the applicant shall be said to have made the payment of Rs. 4 lakhs, as a penalty under Section 112(d) of the Customs Act, for the contravention of law which is not his business, in spite of the finding of fact to the contrary by the revisional authority to the effect that imports, in question, were not contraband, is wrong, illegal, perverse, bad in law, and without jurisdiction ? 2. Whet...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hassan Chand and Sons
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR244(Raj)
ORDER--Order passed under s. 184(4).Ratio :The Tribunal was justified in holding that assessing officer's order purported to have been passed under section 184(4) was, in fact, an order under section 185(5) and as such was an appealable order under section 246(g).Held :Section 184 does not contemplate an order to be passed by the Income Tax Officer in respect of granting or refusing to grant registration to a firm. It is section 185 which empowers the Income Tax Officer to pass an order in that respect. The order passed by an Income Tax Officer under section 185 is unquestionably an appealable order as per provisions of section 246(g). In view of the above the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income Tax Officer's order purported to have been passed under section 184(4) was, in fact, an order under section 185(5) and as such was an appealable order.Application :Not to current assessment years.A. Y. :1960-61 and 1961-62Income Tax Act 1961 s.246 Business expenditure--ALLOWABILIT...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR55(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In Income-tax Reference No. 80 of 1986, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated August 13, 1985, in respect of the assessment year 1980-81, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of Rs. 35,69,868 from investment of reserve funds is exempt under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not holding that the reserve and other funds invested in the modes prescribed under Section 63 of the Co-operative Societies Act, was investment of non-banking nature, particularly when no permission of the Registrar to utilise the same for banking business has been obtained by the assessee and that income arising therefrom was income from non-banking assets not liable for deduction under Section 80...
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hassan Chand and Sons.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)284
M. A. A. KHAN, J :This joint reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') for asst. yrs. 1960-61 and 1961-62. The Tribunal has referred to this Court for its opinion the following questions : Asst. yr. 1960-61 :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the ITOs order passed under s. 184(4) was in fact an order under s. 185(5) and was appealable ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the application for registration filed on 31st Dec., 1959 for the asst. yr. 1960-61 was filed within the time allowed ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership was valid ?' Asst. yr. 1961-62'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the...
Bhanwar Lal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC368; 1996(1)WLN394
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an old petition of 1987 wherein so far return has not been filed on behalf of the respondents, today, a request was made by learned Government Advocate Shri UCS Singhvi to grant some time to file return to complete the record of this case. This request comes at a very belated stage and, therefore, it is rejected. In absence of the counter reply, this Court has no other alternate but to decide the petition on the basis of the averments made in the petition. However, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Government Advocate regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal provided under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act') and, therefore, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. In ordinary circumstances, ...
Managing Director and anr. Vs. Faily Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2459]; (1997)ILLJ817Raj
Dalela, J.1. The respondent petitioner was appointed as Mali to look after the garden of the Design, Development and Research Centre of the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation for two to three hours everyday against a lump sum monthly payment of Rs. 100. The Annexure R/1 filed with the reply by the appellants-non- petitioners, shows that he was so appointed on temporary basis with effect from August 24, 1985. Services of the respondent continued till sometime in the year 1988. Thereafter he was discontinued. He preferred a writ against the appellant non- petitioners and the learned single Judge by his order dated April 15, 1991 accepted the writ petition and directed the respondents- appellants to allow the petitioner to continue in service, and his services shall be treated as continuous. The petitioner was directed to move before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, for the computation of the back wages. The non-petitioners were also given freedom to raise dispute under the Indus...
Ratan Chand Lodha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR24(Raj)
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench,Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), to this court for its opinion, the following questions, viz. :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 11,500 made by the Income-tax Officer and also the addition of Rs, 39,000 enhanced by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which represented notings on a piece of paper titled 'Jakad' ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition on the basis of a piece of paper having notings of date and amount only without proving the ownership or investment in terms of Section 69 or Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether the Tribunal could in law presume from Jakad slip that the assessee had made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, in spite of the fact that 'Jakad' repr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »