Rajasthan Court May 1997 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.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC126; 1997(1)WLN599
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 24.4.95 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, modifying the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Civil Judge Sr. Div. No. 1.2. Brief facts which are necessary for just decision of the present appeal are that the State of Rajasthan (Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner) invited tenders for the supply of Games Articles. Plaintiffs 16 sport articles were approved. The Goods were supplied to the Zila Parishad and payment was to be made by Zila Parishad. It is averred that 90 per cent price of sport goods was paid by Zila Parishad Tonk but 10 per cent of the amount of goods was not paid without any valid reason inspite of repeated reminders and notices which necessitated the plaintiff-appellant to file the present suit for recovery of unpaid price of approved goods supplied to the defendants with interest.3. Learned trial Court allowed interest @ 12 per cent per annum on...
A. S. Construction Co. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Raj)69
P. P. NAOLEKAR, J. :In this petition the prayer is made to quash the impugned Circular No. 737 dt. 23rd February, 1996 [published at (1996) 131 CTR (St.) 1] issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the actions taken in pursuance thereof. The CBDT issued Circular No. 684 dt. 10th June, 1994 to explain the substance of the newly inserted provisions of s. 44AD of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act hereinafter). The Circular has been published in (1994) 119 CTR (St.) 25. In paras No. 31 to 31.7 at page 42, the meaning and scope of s. 44AD has been explained as under :'31.3 The rate of 8 per cent is comprehensive. All deductions under ss. 30 to 38 including depreciation, will be deemed to have been already allowed and no further deduction will be allowed under these sections. The written down value will be calculated, where necessary, as if depreciation as applicable has been allowed. In the case of firms, the normal deductions to the extent allowed under cl. (b) of s. 40 wil...
A.S. Construction Co. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1997
Reported in: [2001]252ITR182(Raj)
P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. In this petition, the prayer is made to quash the impugned Circular No. 737 (see : [1996]218ITR97(All) ), dated February 23, 1996, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('the CBDT'), and the actions taken in pursuance thereof. The Central Board of Direct Taxes issued Circular No. 684, dated June 10, 1994, to explain the substance of the newly inserted provisions of Section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act' hereinafter). The circular has been published in [1994] 208 ITR 8. In paras. Nos. 31 to 31.7 at page 30, the meaning and scope of Section 44AD has been explained as under : '31.3 The rate of 8 per cent, is comprehensive. All deductions under Sections 30 to 38 including depreciation, will be deemed to have been already allowed and no further deduction will be allowed under these sections. The written down value will be calculated, where necessary, as if depreciation as applicable has been allowed. In the case of firms, the normal deduction...
Smt. Jadav Vs. Rameshwar Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN494
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In a suit for eviction filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'land lord') against the non-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) a compromise decree was passed on Feb 3, 1986. The land lord initiated execution proceedings on November 1, 1993. Before the executing court an application for seeking permission to deposit rent/mesne profit was filed by the tenant. The learned executing Court allowed the application vide order dated July 27, 1995. The land lord has now preferred the instant revision impugning the said order of the executing Court.2. Learned Counsel for the land lord canvassed that mode of payment of rent had been specifically set out in the compromise decree and when the act was required to be done in a particular manner, it ought to have been done in that matter only. The tenant had obtained concessions on agreeing to make regular payment of rent by the end of each month and had agreed to hand over the vacant possession of shop...
Firm Swaroop Singh Sher Singh Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj216; 1998(2)WLC741
Kokje, J. 1. The office has pointed out defect in this appeal that the special appeal has been filed against an order dated 29-4-97, which has been passed on Misc. Application. Therefore, the special appeal is not maintainable under Clause (18) of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on maintainability of appeal. He submitted that the order, challenged in appeal, falls in the category of 'judgment'. He has also cited the decision of Supreme Court in Asrumati Devi v. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikot, AIR 1953 SC 198; a decision of Rajasthan High Court in Sampat Raj v. Ladu Ram, AIR 1968 Raj 179; and the decision of Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786.3. We find that the case in hand is distinguishable from the cases cited and the decisions do not support maintainability of this appeal. This appeal is preferred against the order rejecting an application filed under Order 45, Rule 13, C. P. C, by which the ...
Samsher Singh Gulla Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ435
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh by which he convicted the appellant Samsher Singh for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In case of default of payment of fine the appellant was ordered to undergo S.I. for three months.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21 -12-1988 Mahima Singh made an oral report at Police Station, Tibi at 6.30 p.m. to the effect that enmity between his family members and Samsher Singh was existing due to old litigation between the parties. His father Ajayab Singh had gone to Ganganagar in order to attend Court proceedings on 19-12-1988. He returned on the evening of 21-12-1988. The informant was waiting at Talwara Jhil Bus Stand. His father Ajayab Singh returned by the bus which arrived at 5 p.m. then he was asked by his father to go to the market. Ajayab Singh went away to the village. It was further stated in the FIR ...
Central Arid Zone Research Institute Vs. Arid Zone Employees Union and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ723Raj; 1997(3)WLC440; 1997(1)WLN613
J.C. Verma, J. 1. The only argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as 'the institute'), tor challenging the impugned award of the Labour Court cum Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter called the Industrial Tribunal) passed on April 29, 1989 vide Annex. P. 1 in Industrial Reference No. 16/1986 between the General Secretary of the Arid Zone Employees' Union, Jodhpur v. Director, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, is that the State Government was not authorised to refer the demand notice containing four demands of the workers to the Industrial Tribunal for the reason that the reference could only be made by the Central Government under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (called hereinafter as 'the Act of 1947'). 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Central Government was the appropriate Government in the present case and, therefore, any refe...
Shanti Lal Vs. LaxminaraIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN491
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The questions that fall for consideration in this revision is as to whether the plaintiff can be compelled to fight against some other litigant not of his own choice? and whether the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC can be read as requiring all persons who choose to lay claim to any sort of right, title or interest in respect of the subject of a suit to be made a party?2. These questions emerge in the following circumstances:(a) The plaintiff petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for eviction with respect of property in question against the defendant non-petitioner Laxmi Narain (for short the defendant) in the trial Court, in the month of November, 1993. The defendant submitted written statement stating therein that the plaintiff executed agreement to sell in favour of Ram Kishore Malhotra on September, 17, 1993 in respect of the property in question and the defendant on October, 9, 1993 handed over possession of the said property to Ram Kishor...
Dr. Umesh Vashwani Vs. Smt. Ratna Vaswani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj84; 1997(2)WLC607
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Both these revisions relate to probate proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short the Act) therefore, they are proposed to be decided by a common order.2. In view of the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act delay in filing Revision No. 215 of 1997 (defect) is condoned. As order dated September 24,1994 is in the nature of procedural direction, it does not call for any interference.3. The learned District Judge, Jaipur City passed following order on November 16, 1996 (English translation):'Counsel for the parties present. As it is a contested matter, it be registered like a suit. Court-fee be deposited as per directions. The case be listed on December 21, 1996 for production of documents and for framing of the issues.'4. Assailing the aforesaid order, Mr. Arvind Kulhar learned counsel for the petitioner vigorously canvassed that the learned Court below did not prop...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1997
Reported in: [1998]231ITR562(Raj)
1. An application for reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, against Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 arising out of the Income-tax Appeal No. 482/JP of 1987, dated June 27, 1990. The Tribunal rejected the application of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act vide its order dated April 25, 1991, which was communicated to the petitioner, vide diary No. 30, dated June 3, 1991.2. Hence, this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The case of the petitioner, inter alia, is that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1980-81 the assessing authority found that the rate for supply of country liquor to the Government for the period July 1, 1978, to June 30, 1979, was Rs. 1,24 per litre. The assessee, Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. which was a Government company, claimed that the Government has allowed the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »