Rajasthan Court February 2001 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.
Babulal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC529; 2007(2)WLN295
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This matter has a checkered history. This special appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 7.12.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 5842/1991 filed by the appellant petitioner, whereby, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Earlier, this special appeal was heard and finally decided by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Justice B.R. Arora (as he then was) and Hon'ble Justice V.G. Palshikar on 17.1.1997. The same was dismissed on the ground that the appellant wanted to raise several grounds other than the grounds which were raised before the learned Single Judge, which was not permissible under the law. They wanted to rely upon the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered on 18.3.1996 in Civil Appeal No. 4804/1996 filed by Ratan Lal Bohra against State of Rajasthan, but the Division Bench of this Court refused to look into the same because the judgment was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme ...
Cit Vs. Anand Prakash Mittal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Raj)418
By the CourtThe Commissioner has moved this application under section 256(2) for requiring the Tribunal to state the case and refer question of law said to be arising out of Tribunal's order passed in ITA No. 2166/Jp/1996. The questions of law proposed by the revenue for the purpose of making a reference are as under :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing further deductions on account of depreciation and interest paid to the creditors in spite of the fact that if the whole of the order of the assessing officer is read, no separate claims on these counts were admissible being covered in the net profit rate ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing further deductions as in (1) above and thereby reducing the total income of the assessee to an amount less than the returned income ?'2. The assessee who is a building contractor filed returns showing his...
Chandra Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC456; 2007(3)WLN546
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner is working as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (for short 'EDBPM'), Dhanok with the respondents since 22.11.1994 on provisional basis. On the request made by the respondent No.2 to the employment exchange office, Bhilwara to sponsor three names for filling up the post of EDBPM. The employment exchange send three names including the name of the petitioner. In turn, the respondent No. 2 called the petitioner and asked him to produce necessary certificates for considering his name for appointment on the post of EDBPM. Accordingly, he produced the relevant certificates like, Sr. School Exam. Certificate, Character certificate, Bona fide certificate, Certificate with regard to holding of Property and Income certificate along with his application on 24.1.1995. The property certificate (Annex. 3) was issued by the Medical Officer of Govt. Ayurved Hospital, Dhanok. However, it seems that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered by the responde...
Nahar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC700; 2002WLC(Raj)UC85; 2001(4)WLN316
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. An award has been passed in favour of the petitioner for his reinstatement in service alongwith a direction to pay him backwages to the extent of 50%. The respondent-Management did not challenge the said award and acquiesced with it but curiously the Department of Irrigation deposited the amount of 50% of backwages in the General Provident Fund Account of the petitioner on the plea that the Department of Finance instructed it to do so. Inspite of persistent query from the counsel for the respondent Department of Irrigation, under what authority of law such an instruction could be issued by the Department of Finance to be followed by the Department of Irrigation regarding deposit of the backwages in the General Provident Fund Account of the petitioner contrary to his wishes, nothing could be elicited on behalf of the respondent except that there is an instruction to that effect from the Department of Finance for this purpose.2. It is clear that the amount payable ...
Tarak Mandal and anr. Vs. Hari Bhagwan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC24
J.C. Verma, J.1. The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 31.3.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran in MACT Case No. 8/96 whereby the claim application has been dismissed in toto.2. The claimants were parents of the deceased Devashish, who is alleged to have died in the accident on 17.9.1995. with a tractor make Ford 3610, being driven by driver respondent No. 1 Haribhagwan and owned by respondent No. 2 Kishangopal and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are insurer of the tractor. It was alleged that the accident had been caused because of negligence of the driver. The claimants had stated that the deceased was earning an amount Rs. 5,000/- per month from his business of photography and agriculture work. The claimants claimed an amount Rs. 28,45,000/- under different headings.3. The private respondents had disputed the occurrence of the accident and denied their liability of compensation. The Insurance Company had denied the liability of compensa...
Saraswati Devi Vs. Mumtaj Khan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC335
J.C. Verma, J.1. The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 17.1.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 66/1992 whereby the claimant has been awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- only. This present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award.2. The claimant had sustained the injuries in the accident occurred on 21.8.1991 when she was travelling in the mini bus No. RJ-14/P-0374 to go to Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur when the other vehicle Metador No. RJ-14/G-1137 had struck the mini bus, due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries. She was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The injured sustained fracture in hand, dislocation of elbow which became unstable and fingers shifted. She remained admitted in hospital for about one month at two times and she was operated open on 17.12.1991. As per medical opinion she suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90%. It is stated that the claimant is unable t...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur Vs. M/S Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali, Jodh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC479; 2002(1)WLN227
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parlies.(2). This is an application under Seclion 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requiring this Court to direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipurto state the case and refer the following two questions of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 8.1.1991 passed in I.T.A. No. 5/JP/90 and 1611/JP/89 for the . assessment year 1987-88:-(1) WHETHER on the Facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was legally justified in directing to allow depreciation on the vehicles which were not registered in the name of the assessee firm? (2) WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally right in observing that assessment framed in the case of this assessee should be treated as substanlive and not protective specially in view of the fact that while competing the assessment in the case of firm consisting of 6 partners has established beyond doubt that assessee firm was...
State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and Another
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC123; 2001(2)WLN386
ORDERMathur, J.(1). The common question which arises for consideration in both the Special Appeals is whether the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Phalodi, against the award of the Labour Court on a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct on the ground that the petition was not maintainable in absence of State of Rajasthan being the petitioner.(2). In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1473/1999, the learned Single Judge held that a writ of certiorari cannot be issued against the agents of the State, if the State is not there on record as party respondent The learned Judge further held that the agent of the State cannot challenge the award in his individual capacity. The award has to be challenged by the State through Execulive Engineer or by the State alongwith the Executive Engineer under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the second respondent workman raised an industri...
Bhanwar Lal Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN87
Verma, J.1. An ex parte enquiry was held against petitioner on the charge sheet issued under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 by the Collector, Jaipur, as per charge sheet and statement of allegation dated 28.12.83 (annexures 1, 2 & 3). The SDO, Sambhar was appointed as Enquiry Officer under the Rules. The ex parte findings have been submitted by Enquiry Officer on 30.5.84. The Disciplinary Authority, respondent No. 3, the Collector awarded the punishment of withholding of 2 Grade Increments with future effect vide order dated 28.9.84 (annexure-6). The appeal was filed against the order of punishment to the Chairman Board of Revenue, which was rejected vide order dated 31.7.86 (annexure- 7). The review application was also dismissed vide order dated 8.6.90 (annexure-8). Being aggrieved against the orders annexures 6, 7 and 8, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition.2. Apart from other grounds challenging the enquiry proceeding,...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur Vs. Mangal Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)112; [2002]255ITR329(Raj); 2001(3)WLC720; 2001(4)WLN90
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83 and arises out of appellate order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 665/JP/1986. The Tribunal at the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax has referred following two questions of law for opinion of this Court:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that 'blank transfer' of shares as recognised by section 108(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 would amount to 'Actual Delivery' within the meaning of the term used in Section 13(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that loss of Rs. 2,73,053 was required to be set off against business income of the Assessee?' 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the finding recorded by the Tribunal as per the statement of the case, we find that the expression used in recording finding has not been used rightly which has resulted in framing of qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »