Rajasthan Court December 2000 Judgments
Metallizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(NULL)365
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 20-10-1993.2. Ground No. 2 relates to the addition of Rs. 10,000 as a result of reduction in cost of R & D testing equipment by subsidy amount for the purpose of calculating depreciation.2.1. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that although the subsidy received by the assessee was initially credited to the profit and loss account as miscellaneous income, the same has been subsequently deducted from the net profit while computing the total income. In this regard, he referred to page No. 42 of his paper-book and drew our attention towards the 4 relevant entry. He further submitted that the subsidy was received by the assessee as incentive against the purchase of R & D equipment in the past year and, therefore, contended that the same clearly constitutes a capital subsidy. He, therefore, contended that the same being capital receipt of the earlier year can...
Tag this Judgment!Sabina Bano Vs. T. Sriniwasan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC238
ORDERMisra, J.(1) A batch of writ petitions including the writ petitions filed by the petitioners Harish Kumar and Smt. Sabina Bano bearing SBCWP Nos. 2767/96 andSBCWP No. 2768/99 respectively were allowed and disposed of by a common judgment and order passed by a Bench of this Court on 28lh August, 1998 wherein it has been categorically stated that 'the writ petitions are being allowed and if any amount has been deposited in compliance of the order dated 20.11.1996 and if such deposited amount is found to be excess amount deposited, the same or any part of the amount deposited shall be refunded with interest. The interest rate shall be 12% per annum.'(2). The respondents in utter defiance of this order did not pay the amount of interest to any of the petitioners and hence one of the petitioners Satish Kumar-the petitioner in SBCWP No. 15/97 first of all filed SB Civil Contempt Petition No. 308/96 and in that contempt petition the respondents contended that the petitioner is not entitl...
Tag this Judgment!Man Singh Vs. Gamer Rebari and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1641; 2001(2)WLC432; 2001(2)WLN628
ORDERShethna, J.(1). This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 670/2000 whereby the learned Single Judge has upheld the judgment and order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh dismissing the claim petition No. 21/99 filed by the claimants only on the technical ground of limitation.(2). From the impugned judgment and order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal, it is clear that a technical ground of limitation raised by the Insurance Company was accepted by the learned Tribunal and it dismissed the claim petition on the ground that though Sec. 166, which provided limitation, was done away from the Statute by Amending Act of 1994 with effect ffom 14.11.1994, the general law of limitation would apply and thai the claim petition was not filed within a period of three years from the date of accident, therefore, it was time barred. The learned Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN496
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are three sons of Bhoma Ram whose ceiling proceedings have led to filing of this petition. In the first instance, the proceedings were initiated against Bhoma Ram under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, which were dropped on 21st June, 1975 on finding that he does not hold any surplus land. By the orders of the State of Rajasthan Under Section 15(1) of the Act of 1973, the ceiling case was reopened on 15.11,1982.3. On 1st August, 1986, the Addl. Collector found that the said Bhoma Ram had no surplus land in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1973. However, since according to second proviso to Section 4(1), a person is entitled to hold land only upto the limit which he could held under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 or under the Act of 1973, whichever is less, therefore, computation of the holdings of Bhoma Ram were also made under Chapter III-B o...
Tag this Judgment!Sand Plast (India) Ltd. Vs. I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Finance and Investment ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas471(Raj); 2001(1)WLC469; 2003(1)WLN594
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.1. This Special Appeal was filed by the respondent in the Company Petition (Sand Plast India Ltd., Jaipur) against the order dated, 15th September, 1998 passed in S.B. Company Petition No. 9/97, by P.P. Naolekar, J. dismissing the objections against the maintainability of the winding up petition filed by the respondent Company (JTC Bhadrachalam Finance & Investment Ltd. Mumbai. Company Petition No. 9/97 was filed by the respondent herein under Sections, 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the appellant company. According to the respondent Company, the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,51,237/-due to it on 3tst December, 1996 with interest thereon. Since the appellant company was unable to meet its financial obligations, the above company petition was filed for winding up of the appellant company, as according to the respondent herein that the appellant company appears to be in a commercially insolvent condition.(2). Preliminary o...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC760; 2001(3)WLN548
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer, dt. 26.12.1996 (Annexure-G) in Appeal No. 69/96/Ceiling/Nagaur affirming the order passed by the Additional Collector, Nagaur dt. 18.3.96 (Annexure-5).(3). The review against the order of Board of Revenue was also dismissed on 1.10.97 at the stage of admission which is also under challenge.(4). In the case of petitioner initially Ceiling Authority under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act found that the petitioner docs not hold land in surplus of the ceiling area and dropped the proceedings. However, the proceedings u/s. 15(2) of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 were initiated for the purpose of determining ceiling area in the case of petitioner under Chapter III-B of the Rajas than Tenancy Act by order dt. 20th October, 1982.(5). Apart from other grounds it was claimed by the petitioner that father of petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Rajveer Singh Vs. Convener and Another
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC754
ORDERMisra, J.1. The petitioner appeared for the Pre Medical Entrance Test held in the year 2000 and qualified for a seat for admission into the BDS course. A letter was issued to him by the respondent No.1-SMS Medical College, Jaipur under certificate of posting informing him that he has to report for interview and admission on 24th October 2000. In addition to this information a notice was widely published in all important newspapers regarding the date of interview and admission. The petitionerwho is a resident of a remote rural area in the district of Jhunjhunu, did not come across the notice published in the newspaper and due to his ill-luck did not even receive the letter issued by the College prior to 24lh Oct., 2000, as a result of which he could not appear on the appointed date for the interview and admission. Consequently the respondents-authorities offered that seat to some other candidate who was lower in merit than the petitioner. The petitioner ultimately turned up for adm...
Tag this Judgment!Trinity Hospital Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(NULL)180
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M. The appeal in ITA No. 1451/Jp/of 1993 is preferred by the assessee against the order of learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 23-6-1993, and the appeal in ITA No. 1763/Jp/of 1993 is preferred by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 6-10-1993. As both these appeals involve a common issue, the same are heard together and being disposed of by a common order.2. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that he is not pressing the assessees appeal being ITA No. 1451/Jp/of 1993 for assessment year 1987-88 and, therefore, requested that the same may be allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.3. The only ground taken by the revenue in its appeal being ITA No. 1763/Jp/of 1993 read as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing to allow deductions under section 80HH and 80-I by holding that the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurav Gupta Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)WLN67
ORDERShethna, J. (1). All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order as common question of law is involved in all these petitions. (2). The Rajasthan Finance Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act') received the assent of the Governor on 9th May, 2000. Chapter 6 relates to amendments in Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952. (3). Section 56(1) of the Stamp Act reads as under;- '56.(1) The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to section 26 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. (2)..... (3).....' (4). Under Sec. 18 of the Act, Sec. 56(1) of the Stamp Act was substituted by following:- '56. Revision by, and statement of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Collector under chapter IV and V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to Sec. 26 and u/S. 31 of the Act, may within ninety days from ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Ram Kumawat Vs. R.S.E.B. and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ642Raj; 2001(4)WLC740; 2001(3)WLN528
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). This petition bearing No. 1560/99 as well as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3994/99 arise out of the same order passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur on 26.02.1999 deciding the application moved by Bhola Ram (hereinafter described as 'the workman') the employee of the erstwhile RSEB now through its successor Corporation (hereinafter called, 'the employer')- The workman has filed an application for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,094 with interest at the rate of 18% under Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 21.5.1996 alleging that he was appointed as work charge Painter by the RSEB on 7.11.1970.and is employed since then under it. By order dated 25.7.1980, the workman was declared to be a Painter II with effect from 1.4.1974 in the pay scale of Rs. 370-570. He was also granted a special advance increment of Rs. 10 w.e.f. 1.4.74 under Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1978. Arrears on that basis were paid to him and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »