Rajasthan Court September 2000 Judgments
Metallizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(NULL)358
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.This appeal by assessee for assessment year 1989-90 is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 23-2-1994.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the material on record.3. The assessee-appellant has raised as many as 12 grounds together with sub-grounds but ground Nos. 1,2,3,6,7, and 10 to 12 (along with sub-grounds) have not been pressed before us during arguments by the learned authorised representative of assessee, and so the same are disposed accordingly.4. Ground No. 4 disputes the disallowance of Rs, 21,094 out of assessee's claim of Rs. 28,950 for entertainment expenses. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the assessing officer has made the disallowance under section 37(2A) and that now he does not dispute the applicability of the said provision. He has, however, contended that the assessing officer made the disallowance calculating the allowable expenditure on the basis...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Others Vs. C.A.T. and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR807]; 2001(1)WLC85; 2000WLC(Raj)UC292; 2001(2)WLN426
ORDERMadan, J. (1). By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.1.2000 of the Central Adminislrative Tribunal Jaipur whereby it allowed OA No. 92/97 and set aside the order dated 16.2.1996 of the petitioner terminaling the respondent employee from service. (2). The factual matrix leading to this writ petition is that admittedly out of three vacancies notified by petitioner No.2 under letter dated 5.2.95, three candidates wereselected by the DPC under its order dated 11.2.1995 according to which respondent No.2 (Pawan Kumar Jhanjaria) was selected al S.No. 2, and accordingly, by order dated 28.7.1995 (Ann. 3) respondent No.2 was appointed as Postal Assistant at Chirawa HQ on purely temporary basis duty governed by CCS/CCA Rules, with the stipulation that his service would be terminated without prior notice if his educational certificates are found false. As per report dated 4.10.1995 (Ann. 4), upon inquiry having been made by Shri N.R. Meena Asstt. Superinten...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Rafique Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ30; 2001(4)WLN79
ORDERGupta, J.(1). This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Shaheeda Begum, wife and next friend of Mohammad Rafique, who is under detention pursuant to the order dated 8.6.2000, Annexure 1, passed by the District Magistrate, Jhalawar.(2). In the petition the detention has been assailed on various grounds. Mr. Gupta learned counsellor the petitioner confined his arguments to ground staled at Para No.9 of me petition. Therefore, it is not necessary to state the facts in great detail. Suffice it to say, the Distt. Magistrate, Jhalawar, having been satisfied that it was necessary for the maintenance of public order and public safety and to ensure communal harmony to detain Mohammad Rafique under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 (for short 'the Act of 1980'), served the order Annexure 1 on Mohammad Rafique and also supplied him the grounds of detention. In the petition, it has been stated that the District Magistrate did not supp...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Granite Industries Vs. Arvind Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC670; 2002ACJ1556; 2001(1)WLC49
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order dated 9.12.99 of the learned single Judge, whereby he dismissed the writ petition of the appellant company.2. The short facts are these: Amrit Granite Industries (appellant) owned a motor cycle bearing the registration No. RJ 10-M-1755. There was an accident with this motor cycle and one Arvind Sharma sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, against Amrit Granite Industries (appellant) and Sarafat Ali. An application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was moved which was allowed by the Tribunal. It was directed that the amount shall be paid by Amrit Granite Industries as it was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. This interim award was challenged by appellant by filing a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge as stated above.3. Mr. Simlot, lear...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Bhardwaj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN100
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 19th December, 1996 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3006 of 1992. The writ petition was initially filed by 15 persons on 25.5.1992 out of which only two persons are appellants namely petitioner No. 11 A.R. Ansari and petition No. 14 Abdul Aziz as appellants No. 2 and 3 respectively. Rajendra Bhardwaj, the appellant No. 1, was not at all a party in the petition. Appellant No. 4, Naresh Surana, was impleaded as petitioner No. 18 only in pursuance of his application dated 10.10.1996.2. Petition was admitted and notices of the petition were issued on 27.5.1992. Following interim order was made on 27.5.1992 on the stay petition:Heard. Issue notice of the stay application. Meanwhile, petitioners who find their name in the merit list as sent by the Public Service Commission in the month of March, 1991, shall be given appointment as Hindi Stenographer in accordance with their seniority. Without exhausting this list no fresh ap...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Jaswant C. Gandhi* Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC27; 2002(1)WLN119
ORDERDr. Lakshmanan, CJ.(1). D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 506/98 is directed against the judgment dated 4.5.98 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4195/96 whereby the appellant's writ petition has been dismissed. The appellant in this appeal is Dr. Jaswant C. Gandhi.(2). D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 679/98 is filed by one Dr. Y.K. Tiwari against thejudgment dated 4.5.98 passed in Writ Petition No. 4214/96 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. By consent of both the parties both the special appeals were taken up for final hearing.(3). The appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No 506/98 filed Writ Petition No. 4195/96 for a mandamus directing the State of Rajasthan respondent No. 1 to create ex-cadre post in the Faculty of Commerce of respondent No. 2 Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur under Section 11(1) and/or 11(14) of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 against the year 1992 or in the...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Inamul Haq Shah Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj19; 2000(4)WLC528
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. These two revision petitions arise from the same suit and since the decision of S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1376/97 may affect the decision of S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1409/97, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided together.2. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1376/ 97 arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 83/97 on 16-7-1997 rejecting appeal against an order dated 2-7-1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 366/97 whereby he had returned the plaint for presentation to proper Court, holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred as Section 85 of the Act would also apply to pending suits. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1409/97 arises out of an order passed in the aforesaid suit rejecting an application for marking the document as exhibit.3. It would be appropriate to take up for...
Tag this Judgment!Chunnilal Vs. Shanta Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj76; 2001(1)WLC487
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Since a common question of law arises in all the above revisions and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.FACTS OF THE CASE [REVISION NO. 160/ 1999]2. The defendant petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 30-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division ) No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 72 of 1997 whereby the application filed by the defendant petitioner under Order XIII, Rule 2, CPC for production of evidence after he has failed to produce documentary evidence under Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. within the time allowed by the Court has been rejected.3. This Court vide its order dated 19-2-1999 ordered for the issuance of show cause notices to the non-petitioners as to why the instant revision be not finally disposed of at the admission stage. After service of notices, the revision petition was heard by the learned single Judge on 8-4-1999. The learned single Judge vide his or...
Tag this Judgment!Chunnilal and ors. Vs. Shanta Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN606
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Since a common question of law arises in all the above revisions and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. Facts Of The Case [REVISION No. 160/1999]The defendant petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 30.1.1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 72 of 1997 whereby the application filed by the defendant- petitioner under Order XIII, Rule 2 CPC for production of evidence after he has failed to produce documentary evidence under Order XIII, Rule 1 CPC, within the time allowed by the court has been rejected.This Court vide its order dated 19.2.1999 ordered for the issuance of show cause notices to the non-petitioners as to why the instant revision be not finally disposed of at the admission stage. After service of notices, the revision petition was heard by the learned Single Judge on 8.4.1999. The learned Single Judge vide his order date...
Tag this Judgment!Satya NaraIn Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN656
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking the relief of regularisation as well as payment of salary in the minimum of the pay scale of the post of Driver.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner joined the service on daily wages as Driver with the respondents on 2.4.1990 and his services had been terminated with effect from 16.6.1991. Hence this writ petition.3. This writ petition was filed on 7.6.1991 and this Court granted interim relief, vide order dated 13.6.1991, directing respondents not to terminate the services of petitioner if it had not already been terminated. Admittedly, service of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 31.5.1991 (Annx. R.5). Petitioner had received the letter of termination on the same day and endorsed it. Subsequently, petitioner filed a fresh application on 1.6.1991 (Annx. R.7) requesting that he may be offered re-employment on contract basis. If he was fully aware of the fact tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »