Rajasthan Court October 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashutosh Pitty
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR450(Raj)
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat and Mr. Sanjeev Johari for the respective parties.2. This reference application has been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated February 9, 1998, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.3. The assessee is a Development Officer employed with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He has returned an income of Rs. 1,08,230 which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on November 5, 1990, without- making any adjustment of the declared income. The said order was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax by order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act with the direction to add back the incentive bonus of Rs. 1,82,692 and Rs. 30,072 out of additional conveyance allowance.4. The Tribunal has quashed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on the ground that such adjustments are not permissible under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. Udaipur Shahkari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(NULL)50
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.Both these appeals are preferred by the revenue against a common order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 28-10-1993 for assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91.2. The only ground taken by the revenue which is common in both the appeals read as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,87,500 under section 80P(2)(e) by observing the commission received on the business of controlled commodities was for the consideration of storing the commodities in its godown on behalf of the Government, ignoring the fact that the assessee had lifted the commodities on cost and sold it to the retailers by charging its own commission fixed by the Government, which clearly indicates that activities of the assessee were of trading in nature and, therefore, the commission, so received was taxable as business income and not exempt under section 80P(2)(e).'3. The facts giving rise to these appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Bagh Singh Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC663; 2001(1)WLN157
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Instant writ petition has been filed challenging impugned order of suspension dated 25th April, 2000 (Annx. 2) as also order dated 27th May, 1999 (Annx. 4) passed by Special Secretary (Revenue) to the Government, by which certain directions had been issued in the matter.2. So far as order dated 27th May, 1999 is concerned, it is only in respect of holding preliminary inquiry in respect of complained instances of conversion of agriculture land into commercial/residential plots. In view of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amlendu Ghosh v. District Traffic Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Katiyar : (1960)IILLJ61SC , a preliminary inquiry held in respect of a particular instance is for the purpose of finding a particular fact and, prima facie, to know as to who may be the person responsible for negligence/misconduct alleged. However, on the basis of findings of facts recorded in the preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be p...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC544; 2001(1)WLN185
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to respondents to grant selection grade to the petitioner with effect from 1.8.1991 and further consequential benefits.2. Petitioner claims that he was appointed on temporary basis as 'Borer' in the grade Rs. 75-160 with the respondent on 1.8.1964 and he was promoted as Blaster vide order dated 10th August, 1966. He was again promoted as Blasting Supervisor with effect from 1st November, 1977. Petitioner claims that he has been denied benefits of selection grade after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service.3. Respondents have filed reply that as petitioner has been granted promotion in 1966, he can not claim benefit of first selection grade and, he had been given benefit of selection grade after completing 18 and 27 years of service respectively.4. The services of the petitioner is governed by the Rajasthan Ground Water Subordinate Service Rules, 1973 and, to understand the matter further, it was asked r...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Managing Director ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC555; 2001(4)WLC194; 2001(1)WLN703
Verma, J. (1) The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 19,7.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City in MACT case No. 36/98 whereby the claimant injured has been awarded the compensation of Rs. 2, 07,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident occurred on 22.1.98 when the bus of the Corporation No. RJ. 14/P-2731 hit the claimant when the injured was taking tea at th tea - stall. He was admitted in hospital and his right leg was amputated under the knee. The bus was being driven negligently and rashly by the Driver. The FIR No. 31/98 was registered against the driver. The claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70%. (2). After framing the required issues in regard to accident, negligence and quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the statements of witnesses and the documents including FIR, site plan, injury report, charge sheet, certificate of permanent disability, and other docum...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Chand and anr. Vs. Khatun and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN298
J.C. Verma, J.1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the non-claimant appellants against the award dated 7.1.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa in Claim Case No. 92/94 whereby an award has been passed in favour of the claimant respondents because of the death of one Peeru. The claim applications were filed by widow and sons of the deceased.2. The accident had occurred on 1.3.1994 when the deceased was travelling in tractor No. RJ-05-R-475 which was being driven by respondent No. 6. The tractor was comprehensively insured with the respondent No. 7.3. The Insurance Company had appeared before the Tribunal, but had denied its liability. No evidence oral or otherwise was produced by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal had held the present appellant liable and respondent No. 6 Banwari Lal to pay compensation jointly and severally and exonerated the Insurance Company when the contention of respondent Insurance Company was accepted to the effect that the tractor could on...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Singh and ors. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC408; 2001(1)WLN130
B.J. Shethna, J.1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order as the common question of law is involved in all these petitions.WRIT PETITION No. 3280/98(1) ARJUN SINGH v. LABOUR COURT and Anr.2. Workman Arjun Singh was appointed purely on daily wage basis by an oral order dated 1.1.1988. He continued to work till 31.3.1990. During this period, he had worked at different places like Phalodi, Bhojasar, Lohawat, Osian and Jamba etc. for the purpose of preparing roads. His services were terminated by an oral order dated 1.4.1990. The case of the Department was that he left the job on his own. However, the labour court did not accept the case of the Department. It held that the workman worked for more than 240 days and before terminating his services the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not followed. It also observed that from the date of his termination i.e. 31.3.1990 till passing of the award i.e. 27.8.1998 period of more than 8-1/2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC605; 2000WLC(Raj)UC359
Madan, J. (1). The petitioner has challenged the impugned sentence on the ground only confined to its inadequacy in this revision petition, Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying therein for awarding deterrent sentence to the respondent (accused) Sangram Singh, who was convicted Under Sections. 457, 458, 323 & 324 IPC but sentenced to undergo four months simple imprisonment under each count and was imposed with fine of Rs. 200/- each Under Section 457 & -158 IPC, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui (District Dausa) under Judgment dated 4.7.96 in Criminal Case No. 215/96 arising out of FIR No. 173/95 lodged on 8.5.1995 at Police Station Bandikui by complainant (petitioner) herein. The accused-respondent Sangram Singh who at the time of incident was duly armed with axe is alleged to have intruded into complainant's house at about 1 O'clock in the midnight thereof, whereupon his mother and sister who were sleeping in the chowk got awaken, and res...
Tag this Judgment!Narottam Kela Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ657Raj; 2001(1)WLC667; 2001(1)WLN153
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This petition comes up on application of early hearing. The application heard and allowed and the matter is heard on merit.3. Services of the petitioner were terminated by the Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Limited, Spinning Unit, Gulabpura, Distt. Bhilwara, while he was working as Spinning Master on probation. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of termination made a representation to the Board of Directors and having failed to get relief, he approached the Regional Dy. Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer, Bhilwara for initiating conciliation proceedings. The Regional Dy. Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer vide order dated July 24, 1998 refused to entertain the application inter alia on the ground that no dispute arises in the Industrial Dispute Act in the case of the petitioner.4. The petitioner challenged the said order inter alia on the ground th...
Tag this Judgment!Jaya Bhaduri Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC559; 2001(2)WLN364
ORDERGarg, J. By this judgment, the above eight special appeals (writ) are being decided together, as in all of them common questions of law and facts arise.(1) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 986/99(2). The appellant-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1589/1998 before this Court on 6.5.1998 stating inter-alia that appellant-petitioner's father late Shri Jagdish was working as Class-IV employee under the control of respondent No. 2 (The Manager, Circuit House, Jodhpur) and her father Jagdish died on 3.10.1997 while he was in service. After the death of her father Jagdish, the appellant-petitioner moved an application through her mother for providing her appointment under The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). But, the application of the appellant-petitioner for providing her appointment under the Rules of 1996 was rejected vide order dated 17.2.1998 (Annex. 1) passed by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »