Rajasthan Court May 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.
Krishan Lal and ors. Vs. Raja Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC8; 1996(1)WLN333
M.G. Mukherji, Actg. C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 12th February, 1987 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 86 of 1976 partly allowing the appeal as filed by the plaintiff Raja Ram thereby partly setting-aside and modifying the judgment and decree dated 5.5.1976 in Civil Original Case No. 9/72 re-numbered as 40 of 1975 as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hanumangarh. While the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit as filed by the plaintiff Raja Ram claiming the shave in the property of his adoptive father defendant No. 4 Pola Ram, holding the adoption not valid in law, the learned Single Judge not only held the adoption valid but also held that the sale executed by the defendant No. 4 Pola Ram in favour of the defendants No. 1 Krishan Lal S/o Nathu Ram and No. 2 Raja Ram S/o Nathu Ram was null and void as the joint family property was sold without any legal and family necessity...
Dr. Ram NaraIn Sharma and 18 ors. Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC286; 1996(1)WLN645
V.K. Singhal, J.1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved in all of them is similar.2. The petitioners were appointed as teachers on part-time/ honorarium basis. A policy was evolved by the University of Rajasthan by which the Head of the Departments were permitted to engage services of the retired teachers/Ph.D. Holders/ Research Scholars for taking classes to un-covered workload of the Department on honorarium basis. In respect of the year 1995-96. The instructions were issued on 21.9.1995 by the Registrar to the Head of the Departments. Teaching Department/ Principals of the University constituents colleges and Director PIM/SASC. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Besides the various conditions it was contemplated that the PH.D. holders would be paid Rs.75/- per period basis up to a ceiling of Rs. 4,000/- per month and at least two periods per day will be assigned. The Research Scholars were to be paid Rs. 40/- per period upto the ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Maya Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC597; 1996(1)WLN239
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Award dated 9.11.92 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the compensation amounting to Rs. 3,99,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 4.8.90 and if the amount of compensation is not paid within the period of three months then the respondents (non claimants) will be liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum. The1 amount of compensation is to be distributed amongst the various claimants in accordance with the scheme framed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, also, awarded the costs of Rs. 200/- to the claimants.2. Claimants, viz. Smt. Maya Devi (widow of deceased Jaipal Singh), Narendra Singh, Rajesh Singh and Jitendra Singh (sons of deceased Jaipal Singh), who are the dependents of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner for the award of comp...
Maqsooda Vs. Abdul Karim and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC87; 1996(1)WLN322
P.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 2.1.5.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, by which, the learned Addl. Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C.2. The material facts to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows: The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for administration against the defendant non-petitioners and one Aishan, who expired during the pendency of the suit. On his death, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application under Order XXII, Rule 4 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. stating therein that the defendant No. 2 Aishan expired on 6.6.1991 in Jodhpur and she had not left any body else as her heir except the plaintiff and the defendants, who are already on record. It was, therefore, requested that the name of Mst. Aishan be deleted from the title of the suit. The application of the plaintiff-...
Neta Vs. New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj28; 1996(3)WLC58
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. Revision Petition No. 605/92 has been preferred to this Court against the order, dated 3-3-1992 passed by Addl. Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 405/82 whereby the application filed under Order 14, Rule 5, C.P.C. by the non-petitioner-Samiti has been allowed. 2. Revision Petition No. 884/92 has been preferred to this Court against the order, dated 14-9-1992 passed by Addl. Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 405/82 whereby the application filed by the non-petitioner-Samiti under Order 12, Rule 6, C.P.C. has been allowed. 3. Since both the revision petitions are arising out of the same suit and the parties are the same and the subject matter and dispute pertains to the same property, I deem it proper to decide the same by this common order. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that the non- petitioner-Samiti (plaintiff) filed a suit before the trial Cour...
Binani Zinc Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Raj238; 1996(3)WLC203
ORDERAnshuman Singh, J.1.By means of this petition undep Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned letter dated 11-4-1996 (Annexure-21) sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department ofMines, Jaipur conveying the approval of the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and Rule 27(3) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to the grant of prospecting licence for limestone over an area of 15.226 sq. kms. in villages Kotal and Kundal,, District Sirohi in favour of M/s. DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. for a period of 2 years. The approval is subject to the imposition of special conditions at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 as mentioned in the State Government letter dated 7-9-1995. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition, are as under :--Petitioners a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation (No. 2)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR252(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In respect of the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 at the request of the Revenue, the Tribunal has formulated the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated May 20, 1984, and referred 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 allowance under Section 36(1)(viii) is to be computed before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A as well as any deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest amounting to Rs. 17,65,281 (assessment year 1978-79) and Rs. 17,70,210 (assessment year 1979-80) on cases in litigation could not be treated as income of the assessee ?'2. The questions relate to the interpretation of the provisions of Clause (viii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Income-tax Act for computin...
Prakash Chand Sanghi and ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar Baj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1996
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas935(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The appellant has challenged the order of theCompany Law Board dated December 19, 1995, passed under Section 634Aof the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the two petitions bearing Nos. 66 of 1992--P. K. Baj v. P. C. Sanghi and 65 of 1992--Sudha Baj v. P. C. Sanghi were filed under Section 397 alleging various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of Thycon India Pvt. Ltd. A compromise was entered into on May 26, 1994, in accordance with which the respondents were to make the payment of Rs. 12 lakhs for transfer of 3,015 shares in lieu of the factory, land and building situated at F-45, Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur, and three months' time was fixed to complete the formalities. Since the formalities could not be completed in the aforesaid period, it is stated that as per the memorandum of understanding on August 25, 1994, time was extended till September 9, 1994. The Company Law Board disposed of both the petitions in terms ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Vegetables Product
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR990(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated August 1, 1985, in respect of the assessment years 1975-7.6 and 1979-80 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that for the purpose of determining priorities, the profits and gains should be reduced by current depreciation but not by carried forward losses or depreciation or investment allowance for the purpose of relief under Section 80J ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the Income-tax Officer first set off unabsorbed depreciation, development rebate and brought forward losses claimed under Section 80) for the earlier years before adjusting the deduction under Section 80J of the current year. The order of the Income-tax Officer was confirmed in appeal. In the second appeal before the Tribunal it was observed that for the purpose of determining priorities, th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdulkarim Stone Contractor,
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR1032(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated February 26, 1986, in respect of the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 of Abdul Karim Stone Contractor and for 1982-83 in the case of Raj. Flooring Stone Co. and Agarwal Flooring Stone Co. Kota :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow extra depreciation and investment allowance for dumpers which claim had not been put up by the assessees before the Income-tax Officer but was for the first time taken by them before the Commissioner of Income-tax in proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act ?'All the three matters are being disposed of by this common order as the question involved is common.2. The dispute in the present matter relates to the claim for depreciation on dumpers owned by the assessees. They derived income from owning of mines, extracting stones...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »