Rajasthan Court March 2000 Judgments
Smt. Krishna Khandelwal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC357; 2000(3)WLN594
ORDERMadan, J.1. This first appeal arises out of Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.92 of the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in a Civil SuitNo. 172/88 by which claim for interest as damages for delayed refund of bid amount was rejected.(2). The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that a suit for recovery of Rs. 41,395/- was filed before the trial court with the averments inter-alia that rehabilitation department of State of Rajasthan (defendant respondent) under advertisement published in the_ daily news paper Rajasthan Patricka in which application to participate in the auction of residential plots situated at Adarshnagar near playground of Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Jaipur pursuant thereto, auction was held on 18.4.95 by the defendant department and Smt. Krishna Khandelwal (plaintiff appellant) participated in the auction and the bid offered by the plaintiff for plot No. 591 was accepted as highest bid so, she deposited Rs. 26750/- as one fourth amou...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ76; 2000(2)WLN140
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This is writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the order dated 6.8.1999, passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, has been called in question.2. The relevant facts are these. Abdul Salam (deceased) and others were travelling in bus No. RJ-14-P-0111 belonging to R.S.R.T.C. on 21.4.1992. There was collision of the bus with truck No. RNG 218. The legal representatives of the deceased Abdul Salam and the injured filed claim petitions before the M.A.C.T., Jaipur. The learned Judge of the Tribunal passed an order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'), awarding Rs. 25,000 to the claimants on the principle of 'no fault liability'. This amount was deposited by the petitioner insurance company, who was the insurer of the truck. The claim petition was finally decided on 28.9.1998, wherein the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred on account of negligence of the driver of ...
Tag this Judgment!H.H. Shri Maharawal Suryaveer Singh Vs. Wealth Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)69TTJ(NULL)304
ORDERAssessing officer allowed certain deductions without giving any reasoningCatch Note:Commissioner was justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 where assessing officer has allowed certain deductions without giving any reasoning.Held:Commissioner (Administration) has assumed his jurisdiction under section 263 correctly as there is no discussion in the order of the assessing officer in regard to the allowability of deductions under sections 43B, 80HHC, 80HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer allowed these deductions in a routine manner and without giving any reasoning. Therefore, Commissioner (Administration) was right in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263. Accordingly, the order of the assessing officer was erroneous as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.Application:Also to current assessment year.Decision:In favour of revenue. Deduction under s. 80HH/80HHC/80-I--PROFIT AND GAIN FROM BUSINESSInterest incomeCatch Note:Interest ear...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd., Jodhpur Vs. Shanker Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN293
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The deceased Devilal was working as a driver with Babu-Lal. He was paid monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. On 27.4.98 at about 5:00 P.M., he was driving the jeep no. RJ19C 6488 belonging to Babulal. All of sudden one camel cart came from the opposite side, therefore, Devilal immediately applied the breaks but due to failure of breaks, he met with the accident and received serious injuries, therefore, he was immediately taken to the hospital at Phalodi and from there, he was referred to Jodhpur where he died. His widow Bidami Devi and his father Shankar Lal filed the claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phalodi (for short 'the Tribunal'). On behalf of claimants Shankar Lal, Raj Kumar and Raja Ram - three witnesses were examined before the Tribunal in support of their claim petition. However, though opportunity was given to the respondents, they have not preferred to exa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN134
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The defendant appellant seeks to quash the decree and judgment dated December 19, 1980 of the learned District Judge Tonk whereby the suit for pre-emption in respect of suit property came to be decreed. The parties shall be referred hereinafter in the same manner as they were arrayed in the plaint.2. As per the averments made in the plaint the suit property was sold by the second defendant Bajrang Lal to the first defendant Bhanwar Lal through a registered sale deed executed on November 2, 1978. The plaintiff claimed that his house situated towards the north side of suit property and there is only one way which leads to the suit property and the house of the plaintiff. On account of right of easement the suit property ought to have been sold to the plaintiff but it was sold to the first defendant and thus right of the preemption of the plaintiff was affected. The plaintiff therefore sought a decree of pre-emption in respect of suit property. The defendants in th...
Tag this Judgment!Gopiram Tailor Vs. Om Shanker and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj282; 2000(2)WLC459
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order dated 24-9-1998 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaipur (East) in Civil Suit No. 64/96, whereby he has dismissed application under Order 6, Rule 16, CPC filed by the petitioner (defendant).2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs (landlords) (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) filed a civil suit for eviction against the defendant No. 1 (present petitioner-tenant) arraying Smt. Savitri Devi w/o Hari Shankar (original landlord) as defendant No: 2 (respondent No. 3 herein) pleading therein inter alia that Hari Shankar Shrimali (father of the plaintiffs) let out shop in dispute to the petitioner (defendant No. 1 Tenant) at Rs. 110/- per month, and after death of Hari Shankar Shrimali, the rent hasbeen paid to Ram Shankar (plaintiff No. 2) because the suit shops had fallen in the share of the plaintiff No. 1 as a result of family settlement dated 27-11-1995 as pleaded in paras 1 an...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kothari Vs. Mewar Anchalik GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN370
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Instant writ petition arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dt. 3rd August, 1999 passed in writ petition No. 3253/98.3. The services of the petitioner were terminated by order dt. 16.6.1987 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and appeal against which has been dismissed on 5.8.1988.4. Learned Single Judge upheld the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, who was not an Enquiry Officer, was not speaking order and therefore the matter must be heard and decided by the Disciplinary Authority once again. However, while coming to this conclusion and directing the Disciplinary Authority to make orders denovo the learned Single Judge went on to observe about the fairness of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Fairness of the Enquiry Officer itself is a subject matter of objection taken by the petitioner against the final order which he wants to canvas...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC653; 2000(3)WLN296
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioners, by way of this writ petition have sought the relief interalia to quash and set aside the judgment of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer passed on 14.6.1990 (Anx. 6), 11.10.1990 (Anx. 7), 17.9.1998 (Anx. 11) and 22.7.1999 (Anx. 12) and that of Revenue Appellate Authority passed on 26.12.1994 (Anx. 10). The petitioners further prayed for restoring judgments dated 30.3.1984 of the Assistant Collector (Trainee) Kota (Anx. 3), and dated 26.10.1990 of the Assistant Collector (HQR) Kota (Anx. 8).2. The facts leading to challenge of the impugned orders, referred to above, briefly stated, that in their Suit No. 83/90 for permanent injunction filed under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') before the Assistant Collector (HQ) Kota the petitioners (Jugal Kishore & others) filed an application under Section 217 of the Act, for temporary injunction in respect of an agricultural land measuring 9 bighas 13 biswas of Khasra No. 58 situated in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. JaIn Construction Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: [2002]257ITR753(Raj); 2000(1)WLC428
1. This is an application under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax requiring this court to direct the Tribunal to submit a statement of case and refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal in Income-tax Reference Application No. 894 (JP) of 1996 relating to the assessment year 1993-94. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, the aforesaid questions have become of academic importance and the Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant application for making such reference under Section 256(1) of the Act of 1961. 2. The Income-tax Officer in the first instance by order dated January 31, 1999, has assessed the income of the assessee by applying net profit rate with specific stipulation that this is subject to depreciation, interest paid to third parties, and remuneration paid to partners. The net profit rate applied subject to expense on these three accounts to be adjusted was 12.5 per cent. From the amount s...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. JaIn Construction Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN129(Raj)
ORDERThis is an application under section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Commissioner requiring this court to direct the Tribunal to submit statement of case and refer following questions of law said to be arising out of order passed by the Tribunal in Income Tax Reference Application No. 894 (Jp) of 1996 relating to the assessment year 1993-94. Inasmuch as in our opinion, the aforesaid questions have become of academic importance, and the Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant application for making the such reference under section 256(1).2. The Income Tax Officer in the first instance by order dated 31-1-1999 has assessed the income of the assessee by applying net profit rate with specific stipulation that this is subject to depreciation, interest paid to third parties, and remuneration paid to partners. The net profit rate applied subject to expense on these three accounts to be adjusted was 12.5 per cent. From the amount so determin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »