Rajasthan Court November 2000 Judgments
Ramavtar Sharma Vs. Laxman Avtar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN11
Yamin, J. (1). This is a revision against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Alwar dated 3.11.1997.(2). I have heard learned counsel for both the parties in details. (3). A suit for eviction and mesne profit of property situated at Swami Dayanand Marg, Alwar was filed by Dr. Laxman Avtar Sharma against defendants Ramavtar Sharma, Smt. Shobha Sharma, Sameer Sharma and Himanshu Sharma. A written statement was filed. The case of the plaintiff was that he received the property through a Will of his father which was a registered Will. It may be stated that defendant Sameer Sharma had filed a suit earlier to cancel the Will in which Ramavtar Sharma had filed a counter claim and, therefore, no counter claim could be filed in this suit as it was simply a suit for eviction and mesne profit. (4). The defendant filed reply of the application to the effect that the Will was forged one and the suit was collusive and that the defendant was competent to file counter claim even in t...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbh Singh Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(NULL)306
ORDERAs all these above appeals involve common points so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA Nos. 2100 to 2107/Jp/1995 are appeals by one assessee, namely, Shri Kumbh Singh for assessment years 1985-86 to 1992-93 and are directed against the common order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 26-9-1995, whereby he upheld the action of assessing officer in assessing interest on compensation of land.3. ITA Nos. 2108 to 2115/Jp/1995 are appeals by one assessee, namely, Shri Madho Singh for assessment years 1985-86 to 1992-93 and are directed against the common order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 26-9-1995, whereby he upheld the action of assessing officer in assessing interest on compensation of 'land.4. ITA Nos. 2121 to 2128/Jp/1995 are appeals by one assessee Shri Kishore Singh for assessment years 1985-86 to 1992-93 and are directed against the common order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 26-9-1995, whereby he upheld...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(NULL)849
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 9-9-1994.2. Ground No. 1 [(a) and (b)] relates to the common issue of priority of set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation over unabsorbed investment allowance and deficiencies under section 80J.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee while returning his total income for assessment year 1991-92 adjusted the unabsorbed investment allowance prior to unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the current year. His claim as regards priority for set off between unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance was rejected by the assessing officer in view of the provisions of section 32(2) and the legal position emanating from the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of Bihar State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]165ITR671(Patna) and that of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Mundra and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC511; 2001(1)WLN403
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The question in this petition concerns about the ambit and scope of Article 229 of the Constitution of India as to the extent of power of Chief Justice and the extent of the field in which interference or say of the Governmenl can prevail. The petition is arising in the back drop of letter Annexure/1 dated 8.8.1997 issued by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court to the Secretary Law and Legal Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur for according sanction regarding upgradation of 16 posts of Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries in the pay scale of Rs. 3450-5000 with the special pay of Rs. 350/- equating this post with the Senior Private Secretary of State Assembly Secretariat. This was followed with quite a few reminders. The request was turned down by the State Govt. vide Annexure/5 dated 30.4,1998.(3). Aggrieved with this rejection, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners w...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC266; 2001(2)WLN328
ORDERMadam J.1. The defect is waived. In view of the urgency of the matter as expressed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been taken up for final hearing today. Undisputedly, respondent No.1 Shiv Kumar Sharma who is member of Rajasthan Police Service (for short 'RPS' retired on 31.3.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. Though, his candidature was considered by the Selection Committee for preparation of the Select List for promotion to the cadre of IPS Officers for the year 1991-92 but since his name could not be included in the select list due to statutory limits as regards the size of the select list, however his name did figure at Sr. No.1 of the select list against the vacancies of the year 1993-94 at Sr. No. 3 of the said list. Since the respondent had retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years as aforesaid, his name could not be recommended by the State Govt. to the Central Govt. for appointment to the IPS cadre as per the s...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and Another
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR74]; 2001(4)WLC392; 2001(2)WLN477
ORDERYadav, J.1. Heard. (2). Perused the averments made in the writ petition.(3). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner lhat the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Rajasthan Slate Road Transport Corporation, therefore, it ought to have been proper to file a copy of the appointment letter along with the writ petition inasmuch as the lerms and conditions stipulated in the appointment letter is binding on the employee and'employer both but since in the present case, the Department has asked option of the petitioner to change his cadre from the post of Conductor to the post of Booking Clerk and the petitioner has exercised his option for changing his cadre from the post of Conductor to the post of Booking Clerk, therefore, In the present case, filing of the appointment letter appointing him on the post of the Conductor is not essential. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexure-1, seniority list of Booking Clerks is sufficient to ho...
Tag this Judgment!LaxminaraIn Vs. State and Ramesh Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC508; 2001(1)WLN665
ORDERMadan, J.1. The complainant has preferred this revision petition assailing the judgment whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar acquitted Ramesh Chand and Gopal alias Ramgopal (respondent No. 2 & 3) of the offences under Sections 302, 323 IPC, 3/25 & 3/27 of the Arms Act.(2). FIR No. 189/97 was registered at Police Station Aktera (Jhalawar) on me basis of Parcha Bayan of complainant Laxminarain recorded at Purana Hospital Aklera on 22.6.97, according to which, at 11 O'clock in the night of 22.6.97 when he and his elder brother Babulal were talking about engine goods while silting on the cart in the field of Nemichand Mehar in the village, one Babulal was hurling abuses in a slate of intoxication, to which his uncle Gopal asked Babulal not to abuse in the presence of ladies living nearby whereupon scuffle ensued between Babulal. Mohan and Gopal, to which the complainant tried to intervene. Meanwhile Ramesh also rushed there and started inflicting blows with 'sal' on...
Tag this Judgment!ito Vs. Bhomraj Agarwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(NULL)297
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M,As the above appeals and C.Os. involve common points, so we are disposing them of together by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 967/Jp/1996 is an appeal by revenue for assessment year 1992-93 and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 12-3-1996, passed in Appeal No. 493/1995-96, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessing officer's reframed assessment order, dated 12-2-1996, passed under section 143(3) set aside, and restored the matter to assessing officer to reframe the assessment by following the directions of learned Commissioner (Appeals) given by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the earlier appellate order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 22-3-1994, passed in Appeal No. 219/1993-94.3. ITA No. 1360/Jp/1994 is an appeal by revenue for assessment year 1992-93 and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 22-3-1994, passed in Appeal No. 219/1993-94 wher...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Nahata Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC433; 2001(1)WLN226
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The petitioner has prayed in this case for:(a) quashing Section 22-A of the Registration Act as inserted by, the Rajasthan Legislature;(b) quashing the Notifications Annexures 3,4,6 and 7 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.(c) directing the Sub-Registrar to register Power of Attorney dated 16.7.1999 which was presented by the petitioner on 30.7.1999.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is a resident of Bikaner City. He is the Khatedar tenant of the agricultural lands situated at Chak No. 13 KYD, Square No. 110/24, Killa No. 1 to 25 Bighas, Tehsil Khajuwala District Bikaner. The petitioner appointed one Sukhdeo Singh as Power of Attorney, authorising him to look after his lands, cultivate the lands, deposit the instalments of the land, mortgage or sell the lands, execute the sale deed thereof and get it registered. The petitioner presented the Power of Attorney dated 16.7.1999...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Pal Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj105; 2001(1)WLC725; 2001(1)WLN480
ORDERShethna, J.(1) It is not only most unfortunate but a pitiable thing when none else bul learned counsel Mr. V.K. Vyas appearing for the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan and respondent No.3-Convener, Central UG Admission. Board & Principal & Controller, S.M.S. Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur contended before this Court in this petition that the University of Rajasthan is not a party, therefore, the petition should be dismissed.(2). It was also contended by Mr. Vyas that the process of giving admission is already over, therefore, the writ has become infructuous and no such relief can be granted as prayed for in the petition.(3). What relief is claimed in this petition by the petitioner? The petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to declare the result of PMT/PVT after giving 3% reservation to disabled persons according to the Government's own decision dated 21.5.2000 and that the petitioner be given admission in PMT/PVT Academic Year 2000.(4). This petition is fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »