Rajasthan Court February 2000 Judgments
Ram Bilas Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC505; 2000(3)WLN572
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quasing the judgment dated 13.12.96 Annexure 3 to the writ petition passed by Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer by issuing a writ of certiorari. (2). Heard. (3). Perused the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue Annexure 3 to the writ petition. (4). The brief facts which are essential for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner filed a suit before Sub-Divisional Officer, Baran and also moved an application under Sec. 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 relating to Khasra No. 71 measuring 7 Bigha 6 Biswa which is recorded in the name of the petitioner as well as in the name of his sisters. It is averred in the writ petition that respondent No. 4 wanted to grab the disputed land, hence prayer was made to appoint Tehsidar, Mangrol as its receiver. The respondent No. 3 Sub Divisional Officer, Baran after hearing the arguments of plaintiff and defendant both by his order d...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjilal Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj291; 2000(4)WLC93
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, questioning the vires of the provisions, contained under Rules 49, 51, 52 and 59 ( 14) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called, 'the Election Rules of 1994').2. It is true that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of filing an election petition, as provided under Section 43 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act read with Chapter XIII of the Election Rules of 1994. The basic question involved In the present writ petition, Is that If the aforesaid rules are held to be ultra vires, then, of course, instead of invoking statutory provisions, contained under Section 43 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act read with Chapter XIII of the Election Rules of 1994, by way of filing an election petition challenging the declaration of result before the Election Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled to file the present writ petition, whereas, if it is found that the aforesaid rules, ar...
Tag this Judgment!Chunni Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2355; 1999(3)WLC109
S.C. Mital, J.1. This appeal filed by the accused in Sessions Case No. 117/97 of the Court of Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Cases, Rajsamand, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under Section 8 read with Section 18, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lac; in default one year rigorous imprisonment.2. The charge against the appellant was that on 22-8-1997 at 11.25 pm. he was found in possession of 1 Kg. contraband opium at the Sati Crossing, Raja Ji Bavji Ka Sthan, Railmagra, in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act.3. The case of the prosecution shortly stated is that the S.H.O. Police Station Railmagra having received information that accused will come to Sati Crossing, Rajaji Bavji Ka Sthan at Railmagra and...
Tag this Judgment!Jiya Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2502
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. Jiya Ram-petitioner faced trial before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC and was convicted and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo two months' simple imprisonment for offence under Section 279, IPC. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo four months' simple imprisonment. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. He preferred appeal which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer on 9-8-1991.2. Briefly stated, on 5-8-1986 at 4.00 p.m. Hans Raj reported to Station House Officer, Chauhtan that his mother, when was alighting from the bus at Sanau bus stand, the truck driven by the petitioner came from the side of Chauhtan. It dashed against his mother who suffered a fracture on her left leg. The truck driver wanted to run but Punma, Sanga and others made hue and cry...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2620; 2000WLC(Raj)UC296; 2000(2)WLN74
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. Through this Misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners Champalal and Chelaram seek quashment of the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the P.F. Act') in Cr.Case No.384/88.2. The facts leading to this petition may be stated as under :-A sample of 'Laddu' of ground-nut oil was collected from the petitioners on 31-8-1988 and a charge-sheet was submitted after completing the procedure on 24-11-1988. The Court summoned the petitioners for which the case was adjourned on twenty dates from 10-3-89 to 22-12-93 for over four years. Petitioners appeared on 22-2-94 and submitted an application under Section 13(2) of the P.F. Act. The Court passed orders on this application on 13-6-94 to call the sample. The sample was not received till 8-9-94. Ultimately the sample was sent to Central Food Labora...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Cit Vs. Kavita Construction (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(NULL)701
ORDERB.M. Kothari, A.M.The appellant is a private limited company, engaged in supply of labourers on contract basis for loading of cement in railway wagons and trucks on behalf of various cement companies in the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra.2. The appellant-company filed its return of income on 1-12-1996, showing total income, at Rs. 15,45,390. The income was assessed by the assessing officer vide assessment order dated 31-3-1999, on total income of Rs. 57,13,713. The following disallowance were made by the assessing officer out of various expenses cited by the assessee :Rs. '1.Disallowance out of the wages and, bonus to works as discussed above. 40,31,743 2.Disallowance out of salary given to lady director as discussed above. 48,000 3.Disallowance out of staff welfare, conveyance, travelling, festival and telephone expenses as discussed above (20 per cent of 1,80,581 + 19,460 + 1,52,675 + 51,124 + 28,460) 88,580 41,68,000(sic)3. The assessee preferred an appeal against the said o...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vasantlal C. Mehta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: [2000]77ITD76(Jodh)
ORDERBehari Lal, A.M.The above appeals and the Cross Objections have been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-III, Ahmedabad dated 29-6-1992 for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1989-90. ITA Nos. 3294 to 3297/Ahd/92 have been filed by the department and C.O. Nos. 3568 to 3570/RJT/99 have been filed by the assessee against the abovesaid order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The only common ground taken up by the department for the abovesaid assessment years reads as follows:'The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment in gold ornament and difference of interest charged in money lending business.'The department, however, has not taken up the ground 'difference of interest charged on money lending business' for the assessment year 1989-90. In the Cross Objections for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89, the assessee has taken up the following ground of appeal:'The Commissioner (App...
Tag this Judgment!Harjeet Vs. Megha and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC369; 2000(2)WLN221
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC arises out of the order dated 15.5.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Anta Distt. Baran in Suit No. 30/96 by which the said trial Court directed that the agreement on the basis of which the suit for specific performance had been filed could not be admitted in evidence. The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 9.6.1975 of agricultural land measuring 7/1 Bighas situated in Khasra No. 1163 which he had purchased from the defendant-respondents for sale consideration of Rs. 2000/- and in lieu of its payment, the respondents handed over its possession to the plaintiff. The recitals of the said agreement had provided that plaintiff could get the sale deed executed and registered for which defendant would extend all co-operation and the registration charg...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Cit Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(NULL)573
ORDERB.M. Kothari, A.M.:The revenue has raised the following ground in this appeal:'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing to allow the deduction under section 80HHC before considering the deduction of section 32A, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act.'2. Written submissions submitted by the assessee states that investment allowance and other incentives are fiscal incentives granted under the Income Tax Act and hence such incentives are not required to be deducted while computing the deduction allowable under section 80HHC of the Act.3. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the provisions of section 80AB and the judgment in CIT v. V. T. Joseph : [1997]225ITR731(Ker) .4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned representatives of the parties. The provisions of section 80AB are clearly attracted in relation to computation of deduction allowable under any of the provisions appearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Ansari Builders Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)66TTJ(NULL)902
ORDERB. M. Kothari, AMThese cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the revenue are directed against the order dated 27-4-1994 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1991-92.2. The assessee has raised the following ground in their appeal :'Because the appellate authority erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 7,07,336 to the declared income by applying a net profit rate of 10 per cent on the contract receipt from MES amounting to Rs. 72,14,922. The appellant on the oral instructions of MES authorities executed extra work for which a claim of Rs. 16,00,260 was made but the MES authorities made payment of Rs. 9,33,000 only and did not make payment for the balance Rs. 6,67,260 with the results that the entire profit was reduced by Rs. 6,67,260. If this amount had paid net profit rate would have been much higher. The expenditure in fact had been incurred for which there are complete details and the entire expenditure is completely vouched. The contention of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »