Rajasthan Court September 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Govind Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: [2002]253ITR103(Raj); 2000(4)WLC209; 2001(3)WLN653
Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Mr. L. M. Lodha for the Department.2. This appeal is filed by the Department questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The question posed for our consideration is whether the amount credited to the account of Ramchander Banarsidass is a deposit or a loan or a trading transaction ?3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on a detailed consideration of the factual matrix of the matter and also the provisions of Section 269T, came to the conclusion that the book entries so made by the respondents with reference to the payment made on its behalf by the other party was at the most a type of accommodation, or loan and not a deposit which otherwise is contemplated by Section 269T. In view of this, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no justification in treating the respondents to have contravened the provisions of Section 269T which othe...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashok Mishra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC45; 2001ACJ158; 2001WLC(Raj)UC64
J.C. Verma, J.1. All the above civil misc. appeals have been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation challenging the order dated 19.8.97 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, whereas Appeal Nos. 905, 906, 907, 908 and 909 of 1997 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation arising out of the same accident and, therefore, all the appeals are being decided together.2. Appeal No. 132 of 1999 is filed by the Corporation, a counter Appeal No. 907 of 1997 for enhancement is filed by the claimant. Similarly Appeal No. 905 of 1997 has been filed by the claimant and counter Appeal No. 1037 of 1997 has been filed by Poonam. Appeal No. 3865 of 1997 has been filed by the Corporation whereas Appeal No. 906 of 1997 has been filed by the claimant. Appeal No. 909 of 1997 has been filed by Madan Mohan whereas Appeal No. 121 of 1998 has been filed by the claimant.3. The facts as stated are that on 28.3.90 Gopal Das was going in car No. MP-07-M-35...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN135
N.N. Mathur, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18.5.1992 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, in Sessions Case No. 29/1988 convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two year's rigorous imprisonment. Appellant has also been convicted on the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to three year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to further undergo one month's R.I. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. While the accused appellant has preferred the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence, the State has preferred the appeal for enhancement of the sentence.2. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is as follows:3. Appellant Sub-Inspector Kundan Singh, Platoon Commander in Border Security Force, was posted at K.K. Tiba on...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Brahma Devi Through Her Lrs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN251
ORDERVERMA, J.1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 26.4.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Ajmer (West) in civil suit No. 320/82 by which order the trial court rejected the application of plaintiff filed under Order 16 Rule 5, 7 & 7A CPC.(2). The plaintiff was allowed an amendment in the plaint by adding para No. 6A and on 28.9.99 the issues No. 4B was framed, as stated by petitioner, to the effect that whether the disputed property is a commercial establishment and whether during life time of respondent her heirs were not doing the business in the premises in question. An application was moved by plaintiff to summon certain witnesses, which was opposed on the ground that at the time of death of respondent the plaintiff was still leading evidence and had closed it subsequently. It was further argued that the petitioner had not included the said witnesses in the list of witnesses, submitted by him, therefore, at this stage the petitioner cannot b...
Tag this Judgment!Gyan Chand JaIn Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: (2002)73TTJ(NULL)859
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.ITA No. 1021/Jp/1994 is an appeal by the assessee while ITA No. 1278/Jp/1994 is revenue's appeal, both for assessment year 1988-89 and are directed against the same order of Commissioner (Appeal)'s Ajmer, dated 28-3-1994.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeal)'s vide his impugned order deleted the addition of Rs. 53,992 made on account of undisclosed income of the assessee shown in the hands of the assessee's wife. Similarly the Commissioner (Appeal)'s also deleted the addition of Rs. 955 made on account of undisclosed income of the assessee shown in the hands of the assessee's minor son. The revenue's appeal being ITA No. 1278/Jp/1994 is on these two counts. The learned Commissioner (Appeal)'s sustained an addition of Rs. 5 lacs made by assessing officer to cover up unaccounted investment in trading of explosives unaccounted cash, household articles and entries rotated by assessee in the names of his wife and son, aggrieved whereby the assessee has preferred this a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC277; 2007(3)WLN54
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This case has a very chequered history.2. It concerned recovery proceedings commenced somewhere in 1965 against respondent No.4 Dau Dayal Mohta by the Mining Engineer of the State of Rajasthan. In response to Notification dated 29th March, 1950 by submitting a tender for grant of mining rights in respect of mica in Udaipur and Bhilwara districts said Dau Dayal had submitted his tenders. In the said proceedings, respondent No.4 was put in possession of Block No. 3 in part 'A' as a result of sanctioning of the mining lease in favour of the applicant on terms contained in the order of sanction. Thereafter, he had submitted another application for grant of mining lease for an area 3 square miles on 4.6.1952 which was allowed vide communication dated 10.9.1957. In respect of demand on account of royalty payable under the two grants, some dispute was there about the liability to pay dead rent under the first grant. This led to filing of a writ petition No. 1197 of 1983 for...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Shanti Edu. Trust Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC345; 2001(1)WLN191
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, an educational trust claiming for the following reliefs:I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 1.8.2000 (Annex. * 16) and 3.8.2000 (Annex. 17) be declared illegal and be quashed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner.II. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, it may be declared that the Jain community falls in the religious minority in the State of Rajasthan and is entitled to exercise its right conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution of India.III. by an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to grant admission to BDS Course from Academic Session 2000-1 against 50% management quota in exercise of its rights as an institution run by religious minority and the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the exercise of rights of the petitioner in the matter of admission so far as ...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR127]; (2001)ILLJ831Raj; 2000(3)WLC765; 2001(1)WLN418
ORDERLakshmanan , CJ.(1). The appellant is presently working as Branch Manager, Industrial Estate, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Bharatpur. He filed the present writ petition; (a) to call for the records and to issue direction to the respondent No.4 to implement the D.O. letter/Communication/Circular dated 24.8.1992 and 24.2.1993; (b) to declare the respondents No. 5 to 8 as ineligible to contest and participate in election for the post of office bearers in Triennial Election 2000-2003 of Associate Banks Officers Association Unit State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur; (c) to declare the election Circular No. 2/2000 dated, 3.8.2000 and list of final nomination received on 10.8.2000, as illegal, arbitrary and to quash the same and for other consequential reliefs. (2). It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that the contesting respondents are not entitled to file nomination and the contest to election for Triennial Election, 2000-2003. He has also raised other contentions questioning...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shikha Bhaumik and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1605; 2001(4)WLC437; 2001(1)WLN469
J.C. Verma, J.1. All these misc. appeals filed by insurance company have been filed against the same award dated 11.3.1998 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Beawar, District Ajmer whereby the Tribunal has awarded amounts as under:__________________________________________________________Appeal No. Claimant M.A.C.T. Case No. Amount__________________________________________________________555 of 1998 Shikha Bhaumik 28 of 1996 Rs. 4,52,000556 of 1998 Vishvajeet 29 of 1996 Rs. 14,000558 of 1998 Nirmal Mandhi 26 of 1996 Rs. 14,000557 of 1998 Sanot Hajra 27 of 1996 Rs. 5,19,000__________________________________________________________2. The injured and the deceased persons were travelling in the jeep No. RJ 01-2148 on 1.10.1995 when the jeep met with accident due to which Devdutt Dhorai, Viman Majoomdar, Vishvajeet and Nirmal Mandhi sustained injuries and Mirnal Kanti Bhaumik and Abhayjit Hajra had died. All these persons filed claim applications. As the claim applications were file...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(72)ECC737; 2001WLC(Raj)UC38; 2001(1)WLN552
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Charge-sheet for having committed offence Under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act 1985 was filed against the petitioner. According to prosecution story the petitioner on being searched by Bhanwar Singh CO. was found illegally possessing smack weighing 8 gms. and 5 milligrams.2. Shri Jagdeep Dhankar, learned Sr. Advocate canvassed that CO. Bhanwar Singh was member of raid party and having some interest in the success of raid therefore from the material on record it is evident that provisions contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been flouted and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. Reliance was placed on Nadeem v. State of Rajasthan 1998 (2) EFR 632, Babu Lal v. State 1999 (1) RCR 424, Babulal v. U.O.I 1996 (2) EFR 78 and prayer was made to release the petitioner on bail Under Section 439 Cr. PC.3. I have provided opportunity to Shri Rajendra Yadav learned Public Procecutor to oppose the bail application ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »