Rajasthan Court December 1999 Judgments
Kedar Dargar Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(NULL)460
ORDERB. M. Kothari A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22-9-1992, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1989-90.2. The first ground relates to confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 7,000 out of telephone expenses. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that no specific instance of personal user of telephone has been brought on record by the assessing officer. In the absence of any specific finding about personal use of telephone such ad hoc disallowance is highly unjustified. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Automobiles in ITA No. 734/Jp/93, dated 18-11-1999.2.1. I have gone through the said decision. In that case of disallowance of Rs. 500 made out of telephone expenses has been confirmed by the Tribunal. It is true that in that case an ad hoc disallowance of 4,000 made out of travelling and conveyance allowances was deleted on the ground that no i...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(NULL)27
ORDERB. M. Kothari, A.M.The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal-'(1) That the learned lower authorities grossly erred in applying a gross profit rate of 11 per cent and in making a trading addition of Rs. 64,532.(2) That the learned lower authorities grossly erred in making the addition and ignoring the factum of increase of sale from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 19 lakhs when the sales included sales of more than Rs. 10 lakhs relating to TV sets on which margin of profit was only 5 per cent.(3) That the learned lower authorities grossly erred in drawing adverse inference on account of engagement of electrician.(4) That the learned lower authorities grossly erred in disallowing Rs. 26,616 out of interest to the following old creditorsRs.(i)Shri Ramesh Chandra5,831(ii)Shri Harish Chandra6,176(iii)Shri Manna Lal5,011(iv)Smt. Awanti Bal3,036(v)Shri Shanker Lal1,874(vi)Shri Devi Lal2,274(vii)Shri Khemraj2,414 26,616(5) That the learned lower authorities erred in holding that th...
Tag this Judgment!Umed Khan Vs. Kamal Alias Kamaludeen
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ703; 2000(2)WLC700
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The claim petition filed by the original claimant-respondent No. 1 against the driver (the present petitioner owner and insurance company was decided by the Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara on 17-10-1996 arid the award was passed against driver and owner respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the claim petition jointly and severally for Rs. 25.000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from 18-9-1991 (Annex. 2). It has become final in the sense that neither the owner nor the driver (the present petitioner) has challenged the same in a higher Court.2. When the claimant tried to execute the award passed by the Tribunal in his favour against the present petitioner, who is adriver, he (the petitioner) filed an application under Order 21 Rule 59, C.P.C. before the Tribunal which was rejected by the learned Tribunal by his judgment and order dated 25-11-1999 (Annex. 1). The aforesaid order dated 25-11-1999, (Annex. 1) has been challenged by the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Onkar Lal Vs. Rewa Puri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj228
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Respondent-Rewa Puri filed a Civil Suit in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur on 22nd April, 1975 claiming a decree against appellant-defendant for declaration of Plot No. 366 situated at Bhopalpura, Udaipur as of the ownership of the plaintiff and that possession of the said plot be delivered to the plaintiff which was in possession of the defendant.2. The plaintiffs case as disclosed in the plaint is that plot No. 366 situated at Bhopalpura was allotted to the petitioner-plaintiff as Bapi in 1948 by the then City improvement Trust, Udaipur in lieu of consideration of Rs. 457/-. In 1955 the patta of the plot was issued in the name of plaintiff. The plaintiff started construction on the plot in 1966. At that time the defendant filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction claiming the property in question to be his for injucting the present plaintiff from carrying on construction on the plot and restrain him from interfering with his possession. The application for t...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)11; 2000CriLJ2380
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this appeal Under Section 374, Cr.P.C. Satish Chandra calls in question the judgment dt. 4-11-1996 of the learned Sessions Judge. Jodhpur convicting him Under Sections 376, 366 and 384, I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- Under Section 376, I.P.C. 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- Under Section 366, I.P.C. and one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 384, I.P.C. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 13-2-1989 accused kidnapped Kumari 'R' (name withheld) from the custody of her parents and committed rape on her up to 5-4-1989 at various places and also he snatched the gold ornaments worn by Kumari 'R' during that period. The prosecution case further was that the accused and the two others (since acquitted) entered into a criminal conspiracy and fabricated the false documents showing the marriage of the accused with 'R'.3. On 28-3-1989 G...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2529
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. Satyanarayan through this appeal calls in question the judgment dt. 15-2-97 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu convicting him under-Section 458, 376 and 323, IPC and sentencing him as follows :-All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Under Section 458 IPC : 7 years R.I. & a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default onemonth imprisonmentUnder Section 376 IPC : 7 years R.I. & a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default onemonth imprisonmentUnder Section 323 IPC : One month R.I.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25-5-96 at 7 a.m. Smt. 'S' (35 years) lodged a written report at P. S. Kotwali, Churu stating that in the previous night she was staying in the house of her sister and at about 12-30 a.m. when she had got up to urinate and was returning from the bath-room, Satyanarayan (accused) entered into the house, closed the door gave her beatings and committed rape on her. On this report, a case under Section 376. 458, 343 and 323, IPC was registered....
Tag this Judgment!Sahab Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1999
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC464; 2000(2)WLN554
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. In this revision petition, an application has been moved on behalf of respondent No. 4 wherein it has been alleged that he had filed a caveat and the petitioners had knowledge of it. Since the applicant having filed a caveat had the right of hearing before the matter was taken up for admission. The orders were passed without hearing the applicant. Therefore, the order of admission and stay passed by this Court on 21.10.1999 deserves to be re ailed.2. The case was taken up for arguments on the question whether a caveat is permissible in criminal matters. The arguments were heard on 2.12.1999 and the order was reserved.3. Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant urged that the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 makes a provision under Rule 159 that as and when a caveat is lodged, the Registrar will give notice of the lodging of the appeal and it would be required that appellant/ petitioner will furnish a copy of the appeal/petition or application to the caveator. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Sharan Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR627]; (2000)IILLJ967Raj; 2000WLC(Raj)UC412
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner, while working as Factory Manager in M/s. Sriram Fertilizers & Chemicals, Kota, retired from service on April 6, 1981. While he was working as Factory Manager, an accident took place in the above factory premises on December 25, 1979, when a worker named Gaya Prasad died while working on primary mixture of the Bricketing Department of the Carbide Plant of the factory. 2. A complaint was made by the respondent No. 2 the Dy. Chief Inspector, Factories & Boilers, Kota, under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act of 1948') in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner, being the Factory Manager and one Mr. B.D. Pathak, being the occupier of the above factory. The complaint was made on the ground of violation of safety measures as provided under Section 21 of the Act of 1948. 3. Before the trial Court, the petitioner,while denying the charges, also submitted thatthe co-accused Mr. S.B. Mathur was InchargePlant Superin...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Godara and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj130
Bhagwati Prasad, J. 1. A controversy was raised by a letter petition sent by a large number of students who had taken up the examination for Pre-Medical Test and Pre-Veterinary Test, 1999 (referred to hereinafter as 'P.M.T.' and 'P.V.T.' respectively) held from 9th to 12th June, 1999 at different examination centres in different cities of the State of Rajasthan. 2. By this letter petition the petitioners sought to challenge the enhanced reservation provided for by the Government of Rajasthan in a Cabinet Meeting held on 4-5-1999 whereby the quota of Scheduled Castes was enhanced from 8% to 16% and quota of Scheduled Tribes was enhanced from 6% to 12%. Apart from these two reservations 3 new reservation was provided for by the State Government for the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes (referred to hereinafter as 'O.B.C.') and this was 21% of the seats. As alleged this letter petition was sent to this Court by students after getting purturbed and aggrieved by the newspaper r...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vandana Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC564
V.S. Kokje, J. 1. The appellant Smt. Vandana was elected to the Zila Parishad, Udaipur in the month of January 1995. She was elected Zila Pramukh of the Zila Parishad, Udaipur on 20th January, 1995. A No Confidence Motion against her was initiated on 2nd Feb. 1999. The meeting of the members of the Zila Parishad, Udaipur was requisitioned to be held on 23rd Feb. 1999 in the Office of Zila Parishad, Udaipur to consider the Motion. After holding the meeting, the Collector, Udaipur, who was presiding over the meeting declared that the Motion of No Confidence was carried. Thereafter Smt. Sajjan Katara was alleged to have been nominated as Zila Pramukh on 27-2-1999. 2. The appellant-petitioner challenged the proceedings of the meeting in which the No Confidence Motion was declared to be carried out as also the nomination of Smt. Sajjan Katara, by filing a petition in this Court. Several grounds were raised in the petition including the question of fairness and validity of the procedure adop...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »