Rajasthan Court April 2000 Judgments
Chimna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj371; 2000(3)WLC619; 2000(3)WLN313
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20-1 -2000 (Annex. 6), by which petitioner has been removed from the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Pipar City, District Jodhpur. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that elections of Municipal Board, Pipar City were held in August, 1995, in which petitioner was elected as a Ward Member from Ward No. 21 and subsequently he was duly elected as the Chairman of the sald Board, on 29-8-1995 in 1997, there had been litigation regarding 'No Confidence Motion' and the Division Bench judgment of this Court, in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 365/1998 (reported in AIR 1999 Raj 93), passed certain order in favour of the petitioner and in view of the same, he was reinstated. Petitioner was put under suspension after issuing a show cause notice in contemplation of an action under Section 26 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. 1959 (for short, 'the Act'). Petitioner filed Writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Lok Hotels and Resorts Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jaipur Municipal Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj396; 2000(3)WLC278
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. Vide advertisement Issued by the Director of Estate, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur it was notified to auction of a free land, ceiling free, vacant property known as Dr. Hellings Bungalow located at Station Road, near Khasa Kothi for setting up a hotel/ commercial complex / hotel cum commercial complex, on the conditions mentioned therein in Annexure-1. The petitioner was the successful bidder where bid was accepted and confirmed by the Government of Rajasthan for a price @ Rs. 18.815/-per sq. meter and the total price of the plot / building in question being Rs. 19,56,76,000.00. A sale-deed was also executed on 7-1-1997 vide Annexure-2. The physical possession was also transferred. Building plans are said to have been submitted by the petitioner. It is stated that the building plans were ultimately approved on 20-2-1997, but still not released. For releasing the building plans a demand of certain amount vide Annexure-5 was made i.e. charges for additional constr...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaiya Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj407; 2000(2)WLN377
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition hasbeen filed for setting aside the election ofrespondent No. 2 as the Sarpanch of GramPanchayat, Panchu, tehsil Nokha, districtBikaner, as he stood disqualified even priorto the contest of the election under Section19(gg) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994inserted by the Ordinance issued on 25-12-1997. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the election of Gram Panchayat, Panchu was held on 31-1-2000 and respondent No. 2 Mr. Jetha Ram was elected as the Sarpanch. The instant writ petition has been filed on the ground that under Section 19 (gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act'), as respondent No. 2 stood disqualified to become a candidate in the election for the reason that cognizance of the offences had been taken and the same is punishable with imprisonment for five years or more, therefore, this Court must declare him disqualified and restrain him to work' as 'Sarpanch. 3. Mr. I....
Tag this Judgment!Ramzan Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3406; 2000(2)WLC765; 2000(2)WLN229
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of this Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226, petitioner Ramzan Khan through his father Bhai Khan has challenged the order of detention dated 27-6-1999 passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and the orders of the State Government dated 6-7-99 and 13-8-99 confirming the order of detention.2. It is alleged that the petitioner is a resident of village Kishangarh, District Jaisalmer, which is situated at Indo-Pak International Border. His activities have been anti national. There has been entry in the Crime Note Book of village Nachna and record in the history sheet of the file of the petitioner where there has been mention of the fact that he has been indulging in spying activities and sending information of public importance to the Intelligence Agencies of the Pak through telephone etc. There is an adverse report in the C.I.D. (B.I.) report Intelligence and report sent by the C...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Chetanram Ram Gopal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(NULL)229
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 deleting the addition of Rs. 77,000 in respect of unexplained liabilities in labour charges account.'2. The assessee in the cross-objection submitted by them has raised as many as 8 grounds but it mainly supports the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 77,000 made in respect of liability for outstanding labour payments shown in the balance-sheet. The other point raised in cross-objection relates to confirmation of the application of G.P. rate of 15 per cent by the assessing officer on contract payments receipts of the assessee.3. The learned senior departmental Representative submitted that the balance sheet furnished by the assessee, inter alia, disclosed liability of Rs. 72,000 under the head 'labour payment account' in the first period covering the period from 1-1-1984, to 1 5...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)68TTJ(NULL)361
ORDERB.M. Kothari, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order, dated 25-11-1993, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1992-93.2. The first ground relates to confirmation of disallowance out of interest expenditure of Rs. 14,868. The learned counsel stated that interest-free loan of Rs. 50,000 was given to Shri Balkishan, husband of the assessee. The assessing officer observed that the assessee is paying interest of Rs. 42,830 and has not utilised the funds borrowed on interest for business purposes to the extent of interest free loan of Rs. 50,000 given to her husband. The assessing officer disallowed interest @ 18 per cent on the said loan of Rs. 50,000. Thus, the disallowance of Rs. 14,866 was made. The learned counsel submitted that no fresh borrowings on interest were made during the year under consideration. There is no nexus between the funds borrowed on interest with the aforesaid interest-free advances given to her husband. In the a...
Tag this Judgment!Marwar Petrol Service Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)69TTJ(NULL)772
ORDERB. M. Kothari, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1991-92.2. The first ground raised by the assessee is that the assessment order as framed by the learned assessing officer and as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and on facts. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel submitted an application dated 7-3-2000 under rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, for raising an additional ground, reading as under:'1. That the learned Commissioner erred in not adjudicating the ground No. 7 of the ground of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) regarding status, of the appellant, on the plea that matter has been separately dealt with in appeal for assessment year 1988-89.3. The learned counsel submitted that the additional ground so raised by the assessee is purely a legal question and is included in the general ground No. 1 already taken in the aforesaid appeal. The refusal to grant renewal o...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN186
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant has filed this special appeal against the order dated 12.5.1997 rejecting the petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the present appellant, interalia on the ground that no right of the petitioner is shown to exist much less any fundamental right can be held to have been infringed. The genesis is very old. The facts emerging from the orders which has been produced in the writ petition, are that in the first instance respondent No. 2 has lodged a criminal complaint against the present appellant petitioner that he has illegally constructed a water course through the field of complainant when water course was already sanctioned for Murraba No. 43 through the lands comprising out of Murraba No. 47 Killa 21 to 24. This criminal complaint did not succeed. He therefore, lodged complaint before the Ex. Engineer (Irrigation), Sub-Division Jetsar. He on the basis of site inspection as we...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Royal Garment Emporium
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN228
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These two revisions arise out of the Judgment dated 23.12.1997 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board Ajmer whereby the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer has affirmed the Judgment dated 11.9.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty imposed against the assessee.2. The brief facts giving rise to these revisions are that: a survey was conducted on the premises of the assessee on 8.7.1991 by the Sales Tax Department and it was found that the assessee is not maintaining regular books of accounts. Subsequently, on 16.7.1991, a survey was conducted by the Income Tax Department in which whatever documents containing information about the business of the assessee were available were seized by the Income Tax Department and no material was available with the assessee. In these circumstances, from the period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992, the Sales Tax Officer made assessment under Section 10(4) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 on the basis of Best Judgment Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director Esic and ors. Vs. Chemical and Mineral Industries Lt ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN173
Rajesh Balia. J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant is aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single Judge reducing the quantum of damages imposed by the Dy. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Jaipur. The Dy. Regional Director has imposed penalty by way of damages 100% of the amount in default. By perusing the scheme of Section 85-B, the learned Single Judge has held that quantum of damages as prescribed under Section 85-B is the maximum limit and not to be imposed as a matter of course in all cases, the competent officer appears to have imposed maximum damages without considering the room for exercise of his judicial discretion.3. Reliance was placed on behalf of the Corporation on a Gazette Notification dated 23rd Nov., 1979 (Gazette of India), by which different rates of levying damages have been prescribed for urging that the Corporation has prescribed a uniform rate of damages in all cases depending on number of defaulted and period of continuing d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »