Rajasthan Court July 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jagdish Prasad Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1057Raj
ORDERMathur, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks direction to quash the order of his retrenchment and take him back in service with all consequential benefits. It is further prayed that first and second respondent be directed to abolish contract labour system in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and regularise the services of the petitioner.(2). It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an employee of the contractor and employment of the contractor for labour of loading and un-loading in the respondent Organisation is not prohibited by the Centre or the State Government as provided in Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act'. In view of this admitted position, no relief can be expected to be granted by this court.(3). Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation vs. United Labour ...
Emmanuel Public School Society Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissione ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR914]; 2000(2)WLC758; 2001(1)WLN659
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This Civil Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3805/1996, dated August 18, 1999 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant here and on the ground that the impugned order in the writ petition is based on the facts that the society is a branch of main society established at Kota. The short facts are as follows:2. The appellant filed writ petition to quash the order dated, May 22, 1996 passed by the respondent declaring the appellant society as a coverable establishment under the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1952). A further prayer to declare that no contribution, whatsoever, as has been demanded by the respondent under the impugned order is payable. The writ petition was admitted by Shri N.K. jAIN, J. a conditional order was also passed directing the respondent not to give any effe...
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ghanshyam Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ685Raj; 2001(1)WLC199
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. By this writ of certiorari the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated April 26, 1997 of the Labour Court, Jaipur whereby the application submitted by the respondent Corporation under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') was allowed.2. This fact is not in dispute that the respondent workman had filed the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act as per the directions issued by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 1845 of 1983 decided by this Court on November 23, 1992. In para 4 of the writ petition the petitioner has incorporated operative part of the order thus:'Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated June 8, 1980 (Ex. 18) and August 30, 1982 (Ex. 20) are declared illegal and hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement with other consequential benefits except the actual wages for the period between the date of termination of service of the petitioner and the date of this order....
income-tax Officer Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: [2001]251ITR106(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.2. We are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The respondent has filed returns of his income for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 on February 22, 1988. Along with the returns tax as per self-assessment was also paid. The assessment in this case for the assessment year 1985-86 was completed on March 22, 1988. As the return was filed beyond the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the proceedings for levying penalty for late filing of the return under Section 271(1)(a) and Section 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were initiated against the assessee during the course of those assessment proceedings. The assessee explained that the entire income consisted of profits arising out of the sales of plot of land which is...
income Tax Officer Vs. Pritvi Raj Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Raj)158
By the CourtHeard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.2. We are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `the Act').3. The respondent has filed return of his income for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 on 22-2-1988. Along with return tax as per self-assessment was also paid. The assessment in this case for the assessment year 1985-86 were completed on 22-3-1988. As the return was filed beyond the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, proceedings for levying penalty for late filing of the return under section 271(1)(a) and section 273 of the Act, were initiated against the assessee during the course of those assessment proceedings. The assessee explained that entire income consisted of profits arising out of the sales of plot of land which are immovable property. Accordi...
Cit Vs. Uttam Chuna Pathar Udyog
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN524(Raj)
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.2. We are satisfied that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur, in rejecting the application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and holding that whether in a particular facts and circumstances, books of account could have been rejected or not is a finding of fact and does not call for interference and no question of law arises. This is more so when no perversity has been shown in reaching such finding so as to raise the question of law relating to the findings of facts by pointing out that finding of fact stands vitiated and not binding on this court in reference application. The other conclusions are being subordinate to rejection of books also fall in the same category.3. Application rejected....
Smt. Kulshree Vs. Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC734; 2001(1)WLN473
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner submitted an application on May 4, 1995 to the respondents seeking voluntary retirement under the Golden Hand Shake Scheme in accordance with the circular dated November 8, 1989. The respondents vide letter dated May 18, 1995 asked the petitioner to intimate the date from which she wished to retire. The petitioner informed the respondents that the date of her voluntary retirement may be treated as May 31, 1995. No decision was communicated to the petitioner. On May 14, 1997 a circular was issued by the respondents to the effect that employees who wish to seek voluntary retirement may submit their applications upto May 31, 1997 as per the terms and conditions issued vide Circular dated November 8, 1989. Better terms may be offered to them. The petitioner on May 28, 1997 submitted another application in continuation to her earlier application seeking voluntary retirement as per the terms and conditions of circular dated November 8, 1989. She also so...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›