Rajasthan Court September 1999 Judgments
Danji Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj59
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. Petitioner in this writ petition has raised a grievance regarding 500 sq. meters of land, which was allotted to him by a resolution of the Municipal Board, Mt. Abu dated 29-6-1964 for 7 years vide Annex. 1. After the land was allotted to petitioner vide Annex. 1 he was handed over the possession of the land on 1-4-1966. Petitioner after obtaining the possession of the land started running a Tea Stall on the said land.2. A notice was issued by the Tahsildar, Abu Road to petitioner enquiring about the allotment of the land to petitioner. Copy of the notice has been submitted by the petitioner as Annex. 3. Petitioner appeared before the Tehsildar pursuant to the notice Annex. 3 and submitted about the allotment of land and the possession given to him. TheTehsildar (Revenue) Abu Road initiated proceedings against the petitioner. These proceedings concluded by the Tehsildar by observing that the land was given to the petitioner by the Municipal Board on lease of 7...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ram Bishnoi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC628; 2000(2)WLN63
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This bunch of writ petitions can be conveniently heard and disposed of together as they involve identical questions of fact and law. The cases decided by this judgment are mentioned in the Schedule attached to this order.2. Facts giving rise to these petitions stated briefly are that advertisement was issued by various Zila Parishads for recruitment to Grade III Teacher in the Zila Parishads. The advertisement was duly published in the local news paper. It stipulates the number of vacancies, the qualifications, the eligibility conditions etc. and it pertained to recruitment for the year 1998. The educational qualification required by the advertisement was Higher Secondary School Certificate or equivalent with subjects of Mathematics, English and Hindi and B.S.T.C. qualification. The advertisement published in vernacular reads thus:;ksX;rk%&1- ek/;fed f'k{kk cksM+Z jktLFkku ls u;h 10$2 Ldhe ds v/khu lhfu;j lSds.M+jh ;k iqjkuh Ldhe ds v/khu gk;j lsds.M+jh ;k led{k vk...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manglam Cement Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Raj)549
ORDERBY THE COURT:The appellant CIT, Jaipur has preferred this appeal against the order of the Tribunal, dt. 23rd March, 1999, wherein the learned Members of the Tribunal have been pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee holding therein that the amount of Rs. 6,83,518 could not have been treated as capital expenditure, but was tit to be treated as revenue expenditure being cost of the gear box which did not result in any enduring benefit to the assessee. It was held therein that certain additions which were made in the existing machinery had been done only for the purpose of improvement in the operation of the existing machinery and, therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee was allowable as revenue expenditure. The learned Members of the Tribunal while allowing the plea of the assessee relied upon a decision delivered in the case of CIT v. N.P. Singh : [1994]207ITR183(Patna) , wherein the Patria High Court relying upon a Supreme Court decision Alembic Chemical Works Co. ...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN257
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks the quashment of the F.I.R. No. 158/99 R.S. Balotra u/s. 467, 468, 471, and 420 IPC.2. Mr. Kumbhat, pointing out that the receipt alleged to have been forged was filed in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, contends that the Court only can file complaint for the offence of forgery. He files an affidavit purported to have been sworn by Nena Ram before the Notary Public on 19.8.1999 in favour of the petitioner. Relying on the cases of Kailash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan 1998 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1001, Kartar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1985 RLR-192 and Dharam Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1985 RLR-282 he submits that the F.I.R. should be quashed.3. Mr. Sandhu, on the other land, contends that Section 195 Cr. P.C. does bar investigation of a case, and therefore, F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed. His further contention is that the requirement of filing of a complaint by the Court arises only when the forgery is committed after th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Heera Lal Bhat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)554
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat for the Revenue applicant and Mr. Suresh Ojha for the respondent-assessee.2. Both these applications under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to (as the Act of 1961), which pertain to the asst. yr. 1994-95, have been filed at the instance of the Revenue seeking mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up statement of case and to refer the following common question for the opinion of this Court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that in the case of a firm where profit is computed by applying net profit rate, deduction for salary and interest is separately allowable under Section 40(b) of the IT Act, when in fact Section 40(b) does not provide for any deduction, but places ceiling on the deduction allowable ?'3. It is submitted by Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the Department that on the same point, the Department has already filed Reference Applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. JaIn Construction Co. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR527(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. All these applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), which pertain to the assessment year 1993-94, have been filed at the instance of the Revenue seeking mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and to refer the different questions formulated in each reference application. Though the questions have been differently worded in each reference application it is agreed by learned counsel for the Revenue as well as for the respondent-assessee that the following common questions are involved in this group of applications :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in its interpretation of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act and then holding that the claim of the assessee for interest on capital contribution by the partners and salary to the working partners is covered by the said provisions ? (ii) Whether, in the facts an...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Sultan Mohd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ691Raj; 2000(2)WLC22
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Admit.2. Mr. M.R. Singhvi waives service of notice on respondent in each appeal.3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all these special appeals are being taken up for final hearing.4. The learned single judge by a common order dated February 23, 1999, following the decision of this Court dated August 29, 1995 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition' No. 72/1986 'N.C. Kutty v. R.S.E.B.', allowed each writ petition setting aside the letter dated January 7, 1984 of Dy. Director (Award). The learned Judge also directed to fix the petitioner's salary in terms of the Arbitration Award. Hence these appeals.5. It appears that the technical workmen under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', raised demand for revising and fixing proper pay scale commensurating to their duties. An agreement was entered into between the employees Union and the respondent Board by which the dispute was referred to two arbitrators viz; S/...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. JaIn Construction Co. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Raj)290
M.N. Mathur, J.All these applications under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), which pertain to the assessment year 1993-94, have been filed at the instance of the revenue seeking mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up statement of case and to refer the different questions formulated in each reference application. Though the questions have been differently worded in each reference application but it is agreed by the learned counsel for the revenue as well as for the respondent-assessee that following common questions are involved in this group of applications :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in its interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act and then holding that the claim of the assessee for interest on capital contribution by the partners and salary to the working partners is covered by the said provisions ?(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rao Karan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: [2001]252ITR447(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. These three reference applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957', which pertain to the assessment years 1987-88, 1981-82 and 1984-85 have been filed at the instance of the Revenue seeking mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up the statement of case and refer 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 allowing the claim of the tax liabilities of earlier years under Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, when though the assessee was not disputing the liability, the same was not paid within the statutory period ?'2. The assessee is an individual. The Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax 'A' Circle, Udaipur, estimated the value of the jewellery for the various years, as follows ; Rs. 1981-82 25,37,993 1982-83 26,85,000 1983-84 17,10.000 1987-88 34,52,1203. The above e...
Tag this Judgment!Doongarsingh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1646
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur (Camp Jaisalmer) dated 23-4-1982 passed in Sessions Case No. 38/81. The appellant, who was working in the Military Engineering Service, at the relevant time was posted at Jaisalmer, has been convicted under Section 376, I.P.C. He has been sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 6-5-1981 at about 5 p.m. the prosecutrlx Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Ramchandra aged 50 years, who was serving as a maid servant in the Air Force School, appeared before the police and stated that at about 1 p.m. while she was going to her house from the school, she was intercepted by the accused in her way. He was under the influence of liquor. He caught hold of her and took her to a distance of about 300 yards towards the water channel where he comm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »