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.
Chagan Mal Bastimal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR697(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 18, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75: '1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held that on the final declaration of dividend in the insolvency of debtor on October 19, 1973, as per cheque of date, the claim of bad debt of Rs. 1,35,681 had shifted to the assessment year 1974-75, was justified not to have held that other ingredients of Section 36(2)(iii) of the Act were automatically fulfilled and that the assessee was entitled to the allowance of the said bad debt for the assessment year 1974-75 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to dismiss the assessee's appeal on the new ground that credit for the dividend was taken by the assessee in the accounts for the assessment year 1975-76 and Section 154 was not attracted?' 2. The brief facts of the case a...
Sardar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3186; 1996(3)WLC247; 1996(1)WLN326
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 6-11-1995 passed by learned Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Act cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 94/95 whereby he convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 8/18 of the N. D. P. S. Act and sentenced him with ten years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years R. I.2. The brief facts leading up to this appeal briefly stated are that on May 19th, 1995 at about 7.40 p.m. Parbat Singh, S. H. O., P. S. Hathi Pole, Udaipur received a credible information that the appellant possessed opium and would be available at Mohta Park. Having received the aforesaid credible information P. W. 5 Parbat Singh recorded aforesaid information in Rojnamchaat 7.40 p.m. and proceeded alongwith A. S. I. Vikram Singh P. W. 1, A. S. I. Shakti Singh P. W. 2, Head Constable Shyam Lai P. W. 6 and Constable Bhagwat Singh, Ravindra Singh, Bhanwarlal Gopal Lal and two motbir...
Kalyanmal Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC153; 1996(1)WLN347
N.K. Jain, J.1. The petitioner who was a government servant opted for service in the RSRTC on 30.6.1966 and retired on 31.12.1991 as Supdt. Gr. I at Pali while he was drawing Rs. 1180/- per month but equivalent amount of accumulated leave was not granted on the ground that there is no provision in the Employees Service Regulations of RSRTC about the earned leave. The Tribunal vide order dt. 24.9.1985 (Ex.7) rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.2. Reply was filed stating that communication was given to the petitioner vide letter dt. 19.6.85 (Anx.R./1) that he is not entitled for any benefits as per Clause 58 and 62 of Service Regulations, 1965 and application Under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is not maintainable. It has also been stated that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that on the basis of the provisions of Ss. 13 and 14 of the Raj. Shop & Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 the petitioner is not entitled to get encashment In the absence of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohta Constructions Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)450; [1997]227ITR124(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, in the case of the assessee, has referred the following question of law 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 directing to allow interest under Section 214 on the excess amount of tax deducted at source under Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'An identical controversy on identical facts came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Hindustan Engineering Co. [1995] 215 ITR 527 and the Division Bench answered the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, by holding that (page 529) 'Sub-Section (2) of Section 214 of the Act is not applicable to the refunds from amounts deducted at source. It speaks of any portion of such amount which is refunded under this Chapter. The word 'such' ...
Amar Chand Vs. Rsrtc and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN420
N.K. Jain, J.1. It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the year 1977 with RSRTC he was served with a charge-sheet under clause 34 of the Standing Order on 1.7.1991 (Ex. 1). The respondent no.3 after considering the material on record imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dt. 12.8.1993 (Ex.4). The petitioner preferred an appeal (Ex.5) on 7.10.1993 and the respondent No.2 dismissed the same vide order dt. 8.11.1993 (Ex.6) on the ground that it is not maintainable as no appeal lies against the order of punishment. Hence, this writ petition challenging the order Ex. 4 and Ex. 6.2. In pursuance to the show cause notice issued on 24.4.1995, the respondents have filed reply stating that disputed questions of fact are involved and alternative remedy is available in view of Gopilal Teli v. State 1995 WLC (Raj) 1. On merits it has been stated that enquiry report has been given to the petitioner and opportunity of hear...
Bishan Singh Vs. Hanuman Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ344; 1996(3)WLC281; 1996(1)WLN345
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.2. In this petition the only question which deserves to be decided is whether the petitioner Bishan Singh was duly served with the notice before the hearing of the Revision Petition by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur, and had sufficient opportunity to defend himself within the meaning of Section 401, Cr.P.C. This also needs consideration whether the non-compliance of Section 401, Cr.P.C. has resulted in prejudice to the petitioner so as to necessitate intervention by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of preventing the abuse of the process of the Court and securing justice to the parties. A perusal of the record of the lower Court shows that after the admission of the Revision Petition notices were ordered to be served on the non-petitioners. Bishan Singh s/o Sher Singh was implicated as non-petitioner No. 1 in the Revision Petition fil...
Pritam Chand and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC274; 1996(2)WLN113
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner has been given semi-permanent status from 1.1.95 while the claim is that it should have been given after completion of two years service as has been done in other cases.2. In these matters, a committee was constituted in accordance with the directions of Deputy Secretary II Public Health Engineering Department, Vide the order dated 10.3.1995. It was directed that if any person has completed two years satisfactory service as on 31.3.1994, then he may be given semi-permanent status. The petitioners were accordingly given semi-permanent status on 1.1.1995. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that it should have been done immediately after completion of two years as has been done in other cases.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rajasthan PWD (B & R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments, Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964, the semi-permanent status...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Radhey Shyam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR362(Raj)
M.A.A. Khan, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal'), has referred the following questions to this court for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 6 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is not applicable in this case 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cesser of interest deemed to pass on the death of the deceased in respect of the property held by the smaller Hindu undivided family is to be one-half and not full 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share of the deceased in the larger Hindu undivided family on the basis of deemed partition should have been 1/6th and not 1/3rd ?' 2. The case stated by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ...
Shankar Lal and anr. Vs. Yaseen Ali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC660; 1997ACJ903
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the claimant for the enhancement of compensation awarded vide judgment dated 14.3.1989.2. This case relates to an accident which occurred on 13.2.1989 in which a boy of 10 years lost his life. The vehicle involved in the accident was bus No. RJX 1982 and its driver was Yaseen AH. The bus belongs to the Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Vanasthali and was insured by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Reply of the driver and the owner was that there was no fault of the driver in the accident. The insurance company raised some legal objections.3. The learned Tribunal framed six issues. Claimants Shankar Lal and Bhonri Devi, entered into the witness-box and examined Ram Gopal, AW 2, and Prabhat, AW 3. In rebuttal Yaseen Ali gave his statement. The learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments found under issue No. 1 that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus...
Gopi Kishan Vs. Bajrang Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC585; 1996(1)WLN101
R.R. Yadav, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal arises out of the suit for ejectment from the shop in question against the defendant-respondents alleging that the original tenant (deceased Rampratap) had parted with possession of the shop in question with them and as such their possession is unauthorised and they are liable to be ejected under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as 'Act No. 17 of 1950').2. The defendant respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that they are heirs of deceased Rampratap and Smt. Suraj Devi is not his legally wedded wife. It is alleged that they were living with the deceased original tenant Rampratap during his life time and carrying on business with him in the suit shop. With these pleadings the allegation of subletting was denied and they claimed themselves to be tenant of the disputed shop being heirs of deceased Rampratap. Respondent No. 1 claims himsel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »