Rajasthan Court August 1997 Judgments
Rajasthan Mining and Engineering (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: [2000]244ITR727(Raj)
J.C. Verma, J.1. All the above mentioned seven writ petitions are being' decided together for the reason that a common question of law is involved. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 2316 of 1996--Rajasthan Mining and Engineering Put. Ltd. v. CIT.2. Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), authorises the Director-General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after recording the reasons for doing so, to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer or subordinate.3. In the present case, the petitioner-company is regularly being assessed by the Income-tax Department at Jaipur, ever since their incorporation from 1979, but the Commissioner, Income-tax Department, Jaipur, exercising powers under Section 127 of the Act, has vide order dated March 29, 1996/April 3, 1996, transferred the case of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Mining and Engineering (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Raj)329
J. C. VERMA, J. :All the abovementioned seven writ petitions are being decided together for the reason that a common question of law is involved. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 2316 of 1996, M/s Rajasthan Mining and Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, and others.2. Sec. 127 of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) authorises the Director General or Chief CIT or CIT, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after recording the reasons for doing so, to transfer any case from one or more AOs subordinate to him to any other AO or subordinate.3. In the present case the petitioner-company is regularly being assessed by IT Department at Jaipur, even since their incorporation from 1979, but the CIT, IT Department, Jaipur, exercising powers under s. 127 of the Act, has vide order dt. 29th March, 1996/ 3rd of April, 1996, transferred the case of the petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Dy. CIT, Special Range, Cuttack, Orissa, without givi...
Tag this Judgment!Gad Singh and ors. Vs. Phool Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN209
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The genesis of controversy in this revision relates to interpretation of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC. The defendants 1 to 3 (in short the defendants) have preferred this revision petition assailing the order dated November 13, 1996 of the learned Civil Judge, Niwai, whereby the application under order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and the non-petitioners (for short the plaintiff) was permitted to lead his evidence in respect of rebuttal in respect of issue No. 2.2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court and the defendants filed written statement and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were framed by the learned trial court. The plaintiff on April 19, 1993 closed his evidence and the case was posted for recording evidence of the defendants. The defendants closed their evidence on October 13, 1995 and the case was posted for ...
Tag this Judgment!Thar Cements Ltd. and anr. Vs. R.S.E.B. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC497; 1997(2)WLN210
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Thar Cement Pvt. Ltd. which is an industrial consumer of electricity supplied by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred as to RSEB/Board) seeking directions from this Court, which are two-fold. It has first of all been prayed that the order dated 30.1.1997 issued by the RESB requiring the conversion of bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner into cash security be quashed and set aside. Secondly, it has been prayed that the letter dated 15.3.1997 and Clause 21A of the supplementary agreement entered into between the petitioner and the RSEB in terms of which the petitioner was required to deposit two months consumption charges as security in cash be quashed and declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. In order to test the reasonsableness of the prayer, learned Counsel for the parties were heard at length at the admission stage itself, from which it emerged that the RSEB has framed R...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC227; 1997(2)WLN223
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.8.1994 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. l, Chittorgarh in sessions case No. 130/1994 by which the learned Judge ordered to frame the charge against the present petitioner accused Bhagwan Lal for offence punishable under Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Physchotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act').2. Learned Counsel Shri Rastogi for the petitioner accused vehemently submitted that against the present accused except the evidence in the form of statement of co-accused Kishan Das, from whom the opium was found, there is no other evidence. He submitted that the confessional statement of the co-accused cannot be used against the present accused. Thus, it is a case of no evidence. He further submitted that the learned Judge erred in relying upon the fact that the petitioner is a licence holder for growing opium because in village Potla Kala along with petitioner a...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanpat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ619
ORDERS.C. Mital, J. 1. This is third bail application on behalf of the petitioner Dhanpat Singh, who is facing trial for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C. in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, earlier two bail applications were rejected on 16-8-96 and 9-1-97 by detailed orders.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Soon after the incident, the relatives of the deceased were informed by the petitioner and members of the family. The post-mortem and cremation was performed in the presence of the relatives of the deceased but they did not level any allegations against the petitioner. There is unexplained delay in making the F.I.R. after six days. There is no evidence to establish that the petitioner in any manner abetted the commission of the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. The petitioner and the parents of the petitioner never made demand for dowry or money from the parents of the dece...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad AamIn and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ603
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. The petitioners have moved this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dt. 3-6-85 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar in Cr. Revision No. 2/84 upholding the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nohar dt. 24-9 83 in Cr. Case No. 211/83.2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.3. Non-petitioner No. 2 Noor Mohammad filed a complaint before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nohar alleging therein that the petitioner No. 2 made a report to Municipal Authorities stating that the encroachment made by Mohd Sudiq has been removed. This report was verified by Mohd Aainin petitioner No. 1 in the capacity of a Municpal Member. The complainant alleged that the above report has also the verification which was false. On the basis of the above application, the case which was pending in the Court was withdrawn. On the complaint, process was issued against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate by order dt. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Gopal Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC484; 1997WLC(Raj)UC641; 1997(2)WLN134
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 19th December, 1990 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suratgarh. It is alleged by the petitioner that by the aforesaid order dated 19th December, 1990, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suratgarh declined to accept the application filed by the complainant (non-petitioner No. 2) under Section 257 Cr. P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the complaint in respect of the accused Ram Gopal and Bhim Singh. A perusal of the record of the lower court shows that on 19th December, 1990 an application under Section 257 Cr. P.C. had been filed before the learned Trial Magistrate on behalf of the non-petitioner No. 2 (complainant Bal Ram) by his counsel. The learned Judicial Magistrate fixed 14th February, 1981 for the disposal of that application and on 14th Februar...
Tag this Judgment!Ugam Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC710; 1997(2)WLN312
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.4.1988 contained in Annexure 8 to the petition by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated. The factual gamut of the case as revealed by the record is that petitioner was appointed as Gram Sewak (V.L.W.) on 18.1.1985 on purely temporary basis for a period of 29 days or till the regularly selected candidates are made available by the District Establishment Committee (hereinafter called D.E.C.). The services of the petitioner were extended several times for a period of 29 days and it came to an end in July 1986. As the regular selected candidates were not made available by D.E.C., petitioner was given appointment vide order dated 6.10.1986 contained in Annexure 2 to the petition for a period of six months purely on temporary basis and there has been no further extension of his services. However, petitioner claims that he continued to work without any extension of his services, and h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pushpa Raj Mehta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR638(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in : (i) deleting the addition of Rs. 24,675 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained goods sold on April 1, 1989 ?(ii) deleting the addition of Rs. 62,548 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained closing stock ?(iii) deleting the addition of Rs. 79,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credits ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order is not perverse ?'2. The contentions of learned counsel for the Revenue are that, (i) the Tribunal has erred in law in not deciding the fact that the assessee took the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »