Rajasthan Court April 2001 Judgments
Kishan Lal Vs. Shanti Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC635
Verma, J.(1). This civil misc. appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.5.1990 passed by the District Judge, Ajmer, whereby the probate has been granted to the respondent Smt. Shanti Devi under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925,(2). One Smt. Dakha had died on 31.12.1977 leaving certain properly. Application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act was filed by the respondent with the prayer that Smt. Dakha had executed a registered Will in her favour on 29.9.1977 and the probate letter be issued to her in connection with the properly in question. Application was opposed by the present appellant with the prayer that he is relative of the deceased Dakha and no Will was executed on 29.9.1977.(3). The application of probate was allowed on 28.5.1990 which is challenged in the present appeal. It is the contention that as per the statement of PW-'1 Kanhaiya Lal, Smt. Dakha was not in senses when she had executed the Will and when she had put her thumb impression...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN415
Verma, J. 1. The petitioner was a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department, was charge-sheeted on 15.12.1983 on the allegations mentioned in Annexure-1. An Enquiry Officer was appointed vide Annexure-6. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 16.11.1987. The Enquiry reportwas submitted on 16.10.1987. The petitioner was punished with stopgage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect on 21.9.1988, copy of which is attached as Annexure-7. For the reason that the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner, he had applied for supply of the report on 24.1.1989 which was made available to him on 23.8.1989, copy of which is attached as Annexure-8. From the enquiry report it was revealed that none of the charge had been proved and he had been totally exonerated.(2). It is also submitted that initially on the same allegations, enquiry was proposed against Shri O.P. Yadav Executive Engineer but enquiry against him was dropped by Ann...
Tag this Judgment!Kailashi Devi Vs. Matadeen Agrawal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj306; 2001(3)WLC493; 2002(2)WLN405
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff-Kailashi Devi. The plaintiff had filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm against the respondent-defendants. The suit was filed by Rishi Jain in the capacity of power of attorney of Kallashi Devi, Rishi Jain had examined himself as plaintiff witness No. 1. Objection was raised to the effect that he is not the original plaintiff and, therefore, Rishi Jain cannot lead evidence in place of the plaintiff. His objection was accepted vide Order dated 30-5-2000 and the trial Court had declined to read the statement of Rishi Jain in place of Kailashi Devi and ordered that Kailashl Devi should be present in the Court to lead evidence. Against the order dated 30-5-2000 the present revision petition has been filed. 2. It is the contention that the original suit was filed by Kailashl Devi through Rishi Jain, Power of Attorney. It is further submitted that the authority, reported in 1998 DNJ (Raj) 41 : (AIR 19...
Tag this Judgment!Walaiti Ram Ashok Kumar Jindal Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(NULL)56
ORDEREffect on proceedingsCatch Note:Tribunal recalled its earlier order for the reason that assessee's application, for admitting additional evidence by way of affidavits filed along with these could not be considered while passing Tribunal's appellate order--Now department contended that trading addition which became final in earlier order could not be agitated now--Not acceptable--Tribunal's order to recall its earlier order is not qualified, which clearly implies that entire order of Tribunal stands recalled, therefore, trading addition could be challenged afresh.Ratio:Tribunal's order to recall its earlier order is not qualified, which clearly implies that entire order of Tribunal stands recalled, therefore, trading addition could be challenged afresh.Application:Also to current assessment year.Decision:In favour of assessee.Income Tax Act 1961 s.254 In the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench S.R. Chauhan, J.M. & P.M. Jagtap, A.M....
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Narpat Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN223
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The Jaipur Development Authority in all these four revision petitions, has impugned the order dated June 1, 1990 of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City whereby learned Judge rejected the objections raised by the petitioner in execution cases No. 24/84, 19/84, 20/84 & 23/84 and directed the respondents in accordance with the decree dated August 17, 1971 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan that if they deposit entire amount with the Jaipur Development Authority within two months, the possession of the respondents over the land in question shall be deemed to be regularised.2. The material facts may now be briefly stated. In exercise of the powers under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short 1953 Act) the Government of Rajasthan on June 9, 1960 published a Notification to acquire 552 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land at village Bhojpura, Chak Sudershanpura and Rampura Roopa, which is now the part of Jaipur City, for the developme...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN333
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 12.12.2000 by which the petitioner has been replaced by another nominated member in Municipal Board, Mt. Abu.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was nominated by the State Government in exercise of its powers Under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act) as a member of the Municipality Board, Mt. Abu vide order dated 16.11.2000 (Annex. 1) along with one Shri Parmanand. The said government order was published in the Official Gazette on 25.11.2000 (Annex. 2). However, vide order dated 12.12.2000 (Annex. 3), Mohd. Yusuf Khan, respondent No. 4 shown to have been nominated in place of the petitioner and that government order stood notified in the Official Gazette on 13.12.2000 (Annex.R/1). Hence, this petition.3. Shri S.D. Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the Act provides for a particu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Gulnar Marfatia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR677(Raj); 2003(1)WLN555
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These three references raise an identical issue, though relating to different assessment years commencing from 1975-76 to 1978-79. Reference No. 7 of 1984 relates to the assessment year 1977-78. Reference No. 32 of 1981 relates to the assessment year 1975-76 and Reference No. 58 of 1983 relates to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79. In all the cases a common issue raised is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the salary of Rs. 18,000 and interest of Rs. 890 paid to the husband of the assessee by the firm in which she is a partner was not includible in her hands under Section 64(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. The facts stated are that the assessee's husband, Shri N.K. Marfatia, resigned from the Defence Department and joined as an employee in the firm, New Majestic Talkies, in which the assessee, Smt. Gulnar, the respondent w...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC709; 2001(3)WLN708
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J. (1). Heard Mr. D.K. Parihar for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Chhangani and Mr. Rishi Vaishnav for the respondents. (2). The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:- '(a) The respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in competitive examination and he be allowed to appear in interview for selection and in case the petitioner be selected then the appointment be given to the petitioner. (b) The respondents be directed to relax upper age limit by 8 years for the aforesaid competitive examination to the petitioner.' (3). According to the petitioner, he applied for the post of Sub- Inspector Police/Platoon Commandant in response to the advertisement published by the respondent No. 2 in the name and style of 'Sub Inspector of Police Direct Recruitment Combined Competitive Examination 1994'. The last date for submitting the application form was 26.11.94. According to rule 11 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules 1989 the minimum age requir...
Tag this Judgment!Tej Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4516; 2001(4)WLN500
Arun Madan, J.1. Tej Singh through his wife has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging his detentiion ordered by the District Magistrate, Karauli on 28-8-2000 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, for a period of one year fixed in the order.2. Admitted facts are that on 30-8-2000 Harpati w/o detenu Tejsingh received letter of District Magistrate, Karauli (respondent 2) informing that her husband has been detained under the Act by detentioin order dated 28-8-2000 (Ann. 1), and on 31-8-2000 grounds of detention with a forwarding letter (Ann. 2) of the responent 2 was also served, which was followed by approval of the State Government (respondent 1) under order dated 5-9-2000 (Ann. 3) so also confirmation of the detention order upon having received opinion of the Advisory Board through order dated 17-10-2000 (Ann. 4).3. It is not In dispute t...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Smt. Gulnar N. Marfatia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)245
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.These three references raise an identical issue, though relating to different assessment years commencing from 1975-76 to 1978-79. Reference No. 7/84 relates to the assessment year 1977-78. Reference No. 32/81 relates to the assessment year 1975-76 and Reference No. 58/83 relates to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79. In all the cases common issue raised is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the salary of Rs. 18,000 and interest of Rs. 890 paid to the husband of the assessee by the firm in which she is a partner was not includible in her hand under section 64(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. '2. The facts stated are that the assessees husband Shri N.K. Marfatia resigned from Defence department and joined as an employee in the firm M/s. New Majestic Talkies, in which the assessee Smt. Gulnar, respondent, was a partner, on a salary of Rs. 1,000. Later on, said N.K....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »