Rajasthan Court March 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.
Sita Ram Khichi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC751
Verma, J.(1). The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 4.11.1953. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1966 and then as Asstt. Sub Inspector in the year 1975. He was terminated vide order dated 2.7.1979 by the Supdt. of Police Kola.(2). It is the case of petitioner that there was police agitation in the year 1979, although the petitioner had not taken any part in the agitation, treating the petitioner to be involved In the agitation, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 3/4 of Rajasthan Police (Incitement of Disaffection) Ordinance, 1979 the order dated 2.7.1979 (Annex. 1) came to be passed dismissing the petitioner from service. The order 2.7.1979 came to be passed while exercising the powers under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and after being satisfied that it was not expedient to hold any enquiry. The petitioner filed the appeal.(3). A large number of police personnel i.e. Constables, Head Constables, Asstt. Sub ...
Ganpati Plaza Maintenance Society Vs. K.K. Complex Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN42
Verma, J.(1). The appellant is the plaintiff and has come up in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the order dated 25.9.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur Cily, Jaipur whereby the learned Addl. Distt. Judge has not only had dismissed the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule I & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff, but had still made certain orlher observations, which according to the appellant were not required to be made on the application of interim injunction filed by the appellant.(2). The plaintiff Ganpali Plaza Maintenance Society (here-in- after referred to as 'the society') is a registered society, incorporated on 3.7.1998 with the main objects of maintenance and up-keep and security of Ganpati Plaza premises. To give effective control to Ganpati Plaza Maintenance Society, which was required to maintain the common areas, service and amenities and for which it is alleged that the control of fire fighting equipments, electrical installat...
Hanuman Prasad and Brothers Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN464
Verma, J.(1). This Civil Misc. Appeal is directed against the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which order the District Judge, Jaipur had set aside the award dated 18.3.1998 passed by the Arbitrator and had remanded the case lo'the Arbitrator for fresh decision,, after hearing the counsel for the parties on each item, within the stipulated period of four months.(2). The facts as stated in the impugned order are that one Shri K.D. Bali was appointed as Arbitrator who had given the award on 18.3.1998.(3). Objections were filed by the respective parlies, but the objections filed by ihe respondent were late by 18-20 days. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. The Court vide its order dated 23.1.1999 had made the award as rule of Court by rejecting the objections of the respondents for being barred by limitation, which order, having been challenged in the High Court, was set aside on 5.8.1999. The order of the ...
Modern Woolens Mills Ltd. Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN427
Verma, J.(1). The petitioner Modern Woolen Mills Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'employer') has filed this writ petition against the interim order dated 7.2.95 (Annex.4) passed by the Labour Court in the reference of termination of service of respondent No. 2 Kailash Tiwari on 15.9.88, which reference was made in the year 1990 with the reference order to the fact whether the termination order dated 5.9.87 of workman was justified or illegal or not? Copy of the statement of claim and the reply has been filed. It was the objection of the employer before the Labour Court that no termination order was passed against the workman and the workman himself had left the job amounting the abandonment, therefore, the reference was not in accordance with the pleadings of parties and the reference ought to have been to the effect whether the workman had abandoned the job or not?(2). On the objection taken by the employer, the Labour Court vide order dated 7.2.95 had observed on the contention o...
Kumari Suman Bishnoi Vs. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj383
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondent Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan, be directed to allow the petitioner inspection of her answer sheets in subjects of English and Accountancy permitting her to note down whatever she feels relevant for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that she has been fairly dealt with. Such an omnibus prayer directed at destroying examination system is made by the petitioner under the pretext of saying loss of one year. The petitioner is a regular student going to the schools and appeared in the Senior Secondary Examination, 2000 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan, the result of which was declared on 29-5-2000 and she was adjudged fail.2. As provided by the Rules, she applied for verification of total or reverification of marks in the subjects of Accounts, English and Business Organisation. The result of reverification was communication to her by letter dated 28-7-...
Deva Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC107; 2002(2)WLN63
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the accused-appellant challenging the judgment dated 4.11.1985 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 41/85 convicting the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. by sentencing him to undergo one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' S.I. on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as also canvassed before me.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants and learned Public Prosecutor I have scretinised the evidence on record and reappreciated the evidence on record.3. The prosecution story as it emerges from reappreciation of the evidence on record is that; on 26.6.1984 at 9:45 a.m. an FIR was lodged by Shel Singh at Police Station, Rajsamand with the allegation that at the vary day at about 8 a.m. when he and one Bhali Ram both were going for labouring. When they reached near Dharmeta-ki-Bhagal then Kalu son of Nathu, Deva ...
Cit Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Raj)169
Rajesh Balia, J.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at the instance of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal has referred the following common question of law to this court in the case of assessee for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 for answer :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the hotel business is an industrial undertaking and therefore the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are : that the assessee is a company running hotels at Udaipur. The hotels of the assessee-company were being operated by the Indian Hotels Company Ltd. and 50 per cent of the net operating profits were paid as operation fee. The assessee-company claimed investment allowance on t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Laxmi Sales
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Raj)314
Rajesh Balia, J.In this case an application under section 256(2) has been made for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law said to be arising out of its order passed in appeal in the case of respondent assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the first appellate authority (Dy. Commissioner (Appeals)) who cancelled the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by holding that though the facts disclosed concealment of income by the wholesale dealers of the GPIL yet such dealers could not be successfully visited uponpenalty under section 271(1)(c) in view of the circumstances they were forced to charge on money ?'2. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that application under section 256(2) arising out of order passed in appeals by sister concern of the respondent- assessee M/s Laxmi Sales for t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamadar and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Raj)65
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring this court to issue a direction to the Tribunal Appellate, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur to state the case and refer the following question of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal's order passed in ITA No. 1578/Jp/94 relating to assessment year 1986-87 decided on 5-3-1995, in the case of respondent- assessee. The question requires to be referred to this court reads as under :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the assessing officer to tax the gross profit on the unexplained sales rather than directing to tax the whole unexplained sales, specially when the Tribunal itself has confirmed that sales to the extent of Rs. 1,03,045 was suppressed ?'The application of the revenue for raising this question and referring to this court was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 19-3-1996, holdi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Laxmi Stores
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Raj)316
Rajesh Balia, J.In this case an application under section 256(2) has been made for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law said to be arising out of its order passed in appeal in the case of respondent-assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the first appellate authority [Deputy Commissioner of (Appeals)] who cancelled the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by holding that though the facts disclosed concealment of income by the wholesal dealers of the GPIL yet such dealers could not be successfully visited upon with penalty under section 271(1)(c) in view of the circumstances they were forced to charge on money ?'2. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that application under section 256(2) arising out of order passed in appeals filed by sister concern of the respondent- assessee M/s ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »